Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Arts Funding

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding arts funding in the north-west.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I received a number of letters when the Arts Council made its allocations for 1994–95 to regional arts boards.

Ms Lynne: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Hallé orchestra in Manchester is facing financial difficulties? Is not it ironic that, just when the Arts Council is encouraging that orchestra to be more artistically ambitious, its funding should be cut? Does he think that more money could be made available, in recognition not only of the orchestra's excellent music but of its services to children with special educational needs?

Mr. Brooke: The Arts Council's decision in relation to the Hallé was a matter for the council; but I am conscious that the council has conducted an internal review of regional orchestras and that the whole council has considered the matter.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, throughout the north-west, we have not only excellent orchestras but excellent music societies, opera societies, choirs, brass bands and many talented artists? Can those people expect to get some money from the national lottery?

Mr. Brooke: I join my hon. Friend's tributes to the musical qualities of the north-west. As for the national lottery, it will be up to organisations to bid, and it will then be for the Arts Council, if bids come to it, to decide whether they are within its terms of reference and acceptable.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Secretary of State know that the Under-Secretary made a good impression when he recently attended a performance by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra? Bearing in mind the excellence and world standing of that great orchestra—I should declare my life membership of the Philharmonic Society—may I persuade the right hon. Gentleman to allocate about £500,000 to enable the orchestra to get out of a rather sticky financial situation? The right hon. Gentleman should also remember that next year it must perform in the Liverpool Anglican cathedral.

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary always makes a good impression. As for the allocation of £500,000, would that I were so rich! I am delighted with what has happened in respect of the Philharmonic hall. I am conscious that the orchestra will be moving into the cathedral during the closure of the hall, and I hope that that time goes well.

Sports Clubs

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many (a) under 16-year-old and (b) under 18-year-old (i) boys and (ii) girls are estimated to attend sports clubs for coaching and team games; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The information is not held centrally. However, the Sports Council has


commissioned a national survey of young people's involvement in sport which will ask about their membership of sports clubs.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that all money going into sports clubs for young people is to be welcomed—and that there should be more of it? We must also support Ron Dearing's initiative of including physical education on the school curriculum, because that is how young people learn to handle themselves physically for the rest of their lives.
Above all, however, does my hon. Friend agree that we must have team games on the school curriculum, because that is how young people will learn to handle themselves —[Interruption.]—as I know because, as a schoolmaster, I took a school team every Saturday for 23 years; the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) should remember that. That is how young people learn civilised behaviour for the rest of their lives, and it is therefore crucial.

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I certainly pay tribute to the money that the Sports Council gives youth sport, which runs at about £4 million a year. I strongly agree, too, that, good though the sports clubs' work may be, and important though it is, it is absolutely essential that it should not be a substitute for proper sport in schools. That is what we want to work at.

Independent Television

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on independent television; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: Our aim is to increase diversity and choice for audiences and to encourage British broadcasters to compete in providing services in this country and elsewhere.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC ought to be privatised forthwith to save pensioners their licence fee? Is he aware that the BBC is known by the British people as an annexe to Walworth road—in other words, that lot over there?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend shows some ingenuity in asking a question about independent television and then putting a supplementary about transferring the BBC to the private sector. I am not sure that his views about the BBC are widely held in the House.

Mr. Mackinlay: In his contacts with the holders of the London commercial television franchise, will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to remind them of their obligations to those millions of viewers outside the area covered by the former GLC? The franchise serves those viewers, but its news and current affairs programmes do not adequately reflect or take into account that fact. The people on the outer rim are not given fair coverage by London News Network and its related organisations.

Mr. Brooke: It is for the Independent Television Commission rather than for me to remind franchisees of their obligations. One of the obligations that the ITC places on them is that 80 per cent. of regional programming should be produced in the area. I shall certainly see to it that the ITC's attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend carry out a review of employment practices in the television companies to see how many of them give £75 and a honeymoon week to heterosexual couples, let alone to gay and lesbian couples?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend's supplementary also approaches the original question from the flank. It may help the House if I say that the BBC said today that it was taking very seriously the concern expressed on the subject of the equivalent of marriage allowances and gifts to single-sex couples. The corporation said that it was bringing forward a planned review of its special leave arrangements generally—and marriage gifts specifically —as part of its overall activity to modernise the benefits and conditions of service of its staff, and that, pending the outcome of that review, the award of one-off marriage payments would be suspended.

Mr. Maclennan: In promoting choice and variety for viewers, will the Secretary of State look favourably on the possibility of establishing Channel 5, and not allow arguments about digital to become confused with that question?

Mr. Brooke: Issues relating to digital are part of the equation that has to be analysed, but we are examining with our technical advisers our capacity to go forward on both fronts at the same time.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister have any policy on the financial probity of television programme makers? There is reason to believe that more than a five-figure sum disappeared from the accounts of a Channel 4 programme; but, rather than assist the police in bringing the guilty journalist to court, Channel 4 covered up the issue so as not to expose the inaccurate content of the programme, which I have raised in an Adjournment debate. Does the Minister have a view on such matters?

Mr. Brooke: The individual broadcasting companies or independent producers acting on their behalf would obviously be answerable for the manner in which funds are spent. The hon. Gentleman's question is a little too detailed in terms of the question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent progress that has been made by satellite and cable television and by all the independent television companies demonstrates to the BBC that it should look to become an independent television company without the benefit of a monopolistic licence fee? When does my right hon. Friend expect to abolish the licence fee?

Mr. Brooke: The direct answer to my hon. Friend's leading question is that we shall fairly shortly publish a White Paper on the future of the BBC. On the issue of other services in which the BBC might engage, my hon. Friend will be aware of the corporation's announcement last week about its future partnership with Pearson's.

Arts Sponsorship

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to encourage the private sponsorship of the arts.

Mr. Brooke: Support by business makes a major contribution to the arts economy. The Government's own


business sponsorship incentive scheme has done much to encourage that welcome development, bringing in more than £73 million in new money to the arts since its inception in 1984. In recognition of the success of the BSIS and the importance of business sponsorship, the scheme's budget has been increased to £4.8 million for this and the next two years.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Allied Lyons on its £3 million sponsorship of the Royal Shakespeare Company? Can he confirm that sponsorship by private companies is in addition to, rather than in place of, Government support?

Mr. Brooke: Of course I salute Allied Lyons on the support that it is rendering to the RSC, just as I salute British Telecom on its support for orchestras, KPMG on its support for opera and all the other sponsors throughout the country on their support for the arts.

Mr. Enright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the preponderance of that investment is in the capital, London, and in Edinburgh? There is a dearth of funds in the provinces, which will lead to difficulties in bidding for lottery and millennium funds. Will he look in particular at the superb, world-class Breton Hall sculpture park, which is very deserving of support?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman knows that members of my family were born on the land where that sculpture park is now located, so I have a natural sympathy towards it and will always be anxious that it should thrive. However, the hon. Gentleman is not correct in his statement that business sponsorship is concentrated on the capital. Some 80 per cent. of the awards made by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, under BSIS, was to companies operating outside the capital.

Arts Council

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy for the Arts Council; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: The Arts Council of England is the main channel for central Government funding of the arts. Under its new chairman and council and with very substantial public resources, it is responsible for providing a strategic policy framework for the arts; for managing grant in aid; and for the monitoring and appraisal of arts organisations. The council carries out those functions at arm's length from the Government.

Mr. Jessel: Having made excellent appointments in Lord Gowrie and Miss Allen to head the Arts Council, will my right hon. Friend always strongly uphold the arm's-length principle to ensure that it is the Arts Council which decides which grants go where and that Ministers cannot be pressurised by endless arguments about the artistic merits of different artists and performers?

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend about upholding that principle. One of the minor disappointments of the recent arts debate was that we did not obtain a gloss on the Opposition's attitude to that principle, arising as it did out of plans that fell off the back of a lorry a little before the debate took place.

Mr. Fisher: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the record he will see a clear statement of our position on the Arts Council and the arm's-length principle.
Does the right hon. Gentleman support the Arts Council's cutting of its disability arts unit? Does his Department have a policy on the rights of disabled people, either as artists or audiences, that he can explain to the large lobby of disabled people outside the House today, who are rightly furious about the Government's shabby and dishonourable treatment of disabled people on Friday?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman referred to the arts debate, during which he was kind enough to call me a patrician—the first time I had ever been so called by an old Etonian. I want to take this first opportunity to return the compliment.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about the Arts Council's disability unit, as he well knows, the council has rearranged its affairs so that those services continue to be performed, but in a different part of the council's organisation.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend join the chairman of the Arts Council in warmly commending the smash-hit British film "Four Weddings and a Funeral" Next time highly paid actors and film makers come to him saying that they need taxpayers' funds to make and distribute successful films, will he point out to them that the message of that success is that, if they get their snouts out of the trough and make films that people want to see, they will be able to achieve success without dipping their hands into the pockets of people who are very much less well off than they are?

Mr. Brooke: Inclement weather on Saturday afternoon drove me into the cinema, and I saw the film to which my hon. Friend has just alluded. I join him in congratulating its makers and actors on a remarkable film, but that does not of itself provide a reason for ending the dialogue between the Government and the British film industry on how the industry's success can be fully renewed.

Mr. Sheldon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the minutes of meetings with the chairman of the Arts Council.

Mr. Brooke: I meet the chairman of the Arts Council on an irregular basis, as the need arises. The nature of those meetings is not such that publication of the minutes would be appropriate.

Mr. Sheldon: Is the Secretary of State aware that that question was tabled to try to elucidate just what goes on in the meetings between him and the chairman of the Arts Council? Do they talk about projects? Do they talk about the importance of the arts? Or do they just talk money? Can we have a bit of light shed on those very important meetings?

Mr. Brooke: I am sorry that, having been tabled for that purpose, the question has not elicited information that would sustain the questions that the right hon. Gentleman subsequently asked, but I repeat that the nature of the meetings is irregular. We have a widespread agenda and it would be inappropriate for us to publish the conversations that we have in the context of specific arts institutions. The new code of practice under the open government initiative


commits us to making available facts and analysis underlying policy decisions. It does not require the publication of minutes of meetings.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with the new chairman of the Arts Council his attitude towards the previous regime's policy of organising a beauty contest for the London orchestras? Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to tell the new chairman of the total opposition of the House to that proposal? Has he had the reassuring news from the new chairman that he proposes to drop any suggestion in future of reducing the funding to the London orchestras and thus the number of orchestras that remain in existence?

Mr. Brooke: The issue to which my hon. Friend refers arose under the previous chairman of the Arts Council, but a line was drawn under that project. I do not think that there is any doubt that the Arts Council is fully apprised of the attitude of the House towards the exercise in which it engaged last year.

Women in Sport Conference

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what part the Government played in the Women in Sport conference on 7 May.

Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what part his Department played in the Women in Sport conference on 7 May.

Mr. Sproat: The Sports Council, which is funded by my Department, organised the international conference on Women, Sport and the Challenge of Change, which took place from 5 to 8 May. I was delighted to note the leading parts played in the conference by two of our recent appointees to the Council, Dr. Sarah Springman and Julia Bracewell.

Mr. Wareing: But can the Minister explain why no Minister from his Department was present at that conference, as it was attended by all the relevant sporting organisations and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who is the shadow Minister for sport? Does not the lack of a ministerial presence at that conference illustrate the complete lack of commitment to the role played by women in sport in this country?

Mr. Sproat: No, it certainly does not. I have expressed my support for such a role on previous occasions, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the England women's rugger and cricket teams on recent triumphs on the world stage. [Interruption.] Fifteen-a-side.
The key answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that my noble Friend Baroness Trumpington was booked to appear on the Thursday but had to speak on Sunday trading in the House of Lords. Julia Bracewell—whom I have already mentioned—made a powerful speech as a member of the Sports Council, with which we agree.

Mrs. Golding: To make up for his failure to attend the conference, would the Minister be prepared to convene a meeting of representatives of television, radio and the press to find a way of promoting women in the media, and to help to encourage them to participate in sport?

Mr. Sproat: I will certainly undertake to speak to Dr. Sarah Springman and Julia Bracewell to see whether they, as two women members of the Sports Council, have any further ideas following the Brighton declaration—which I have read; I should be surprised if other many hon. Members had done so. I will do what I can.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Scotland, we certainly do not notice women failing to compete in sport effectively and well? In fact, we are rather proud of the way in which they compete. Women are very good at gliding, the sport in which I indulge; indeed, we have had women champions in United Kingdom gliding teams.

Mr. Sproat: I was not aware of the gliding component among women in Scotland, but I know that my hon. Friend is playing an honourable part in the D-day commemorations by gliding over the south of England. Moreover, Julia Bracewell, whom I mentioned earlier, actually comes from Scotland.

Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that he missed a very important conference? It was the first ever international conference on women in sport, and it happened in this country. There were 280 delegates from 82 countries, including Sports Ministers from many of those countries.
Many of those present were bemused—and some of us were ashamed—that no British Minister was present. Will not the Minister at least support the Opposition by endorsing the declaration made at the conference that there should be an increase in women's involvement in sport at all levels?

Mr. Sproat: If more women wish to involve themselves in sport I shall be very glad for them to do so, but it is up to them. I read the declaration: it was political correctness in excelsis, but it nevertheless said some useful things.

Tourism

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimates have been made of the number of tourists visiting the United Kingdom from abroad in 1994–95.

Mr. Sproat: The British Tourist Authority estimates that in 1995 around 21.7 million visitors from abroad will come to the United Kingdom. This represents an increase of 6 per cent. on the estimated figure for 1994. The figure for 1994 is around 20.4 million, which represents an increase of 7 per cent. on the provisional figure for 1993 of 19.1 million.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that reply. It is clearly important for us to attract as many visitors from abroad as possible, and a record figure has been achieved—almost 22 million. Is not it also important, however, to attract as many of those visitors as possible to the regions? Let me cite the region I know best, which is the north-west. If people have the opportunity to visit my constituency, they will see natural, beautiful countryside; within 20 miles of the Ribble valley is Blackpool, where they can see the Blackpool tower—which is celebrating its centenary—and the tallest, fastest roller-coaster in the world.

Mr. Sproat: I agree that we want as many visitors as possible to come to this country and to get out into the many beautiful areas that it contains. According to the latest figures that we have, the total amount spent by all visitors to my hon. Friend's part of the world was some £978 million, which is a very large figure. The number of visitors to the area has risen by some 13 per cent. over the past 10 years, and some 175,000 people are employed in tourism—so we certainly take the matter extremely seriously.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there were tourists outside the House of Commons today looking at disabled people who were trying to get in? Those people were refused admission through the main entrance and up the stairs, and were told to go round the side. They crawled on their hands and knees to the carriage gates, and then the gates—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is nothing whatever to do with the Minister. The question relates to tourists visiting the United Kingdom from abroad. I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, and it is nothing to do with the Minister.

Mr. Sproat: rose—

Madam Speaker: Will the Minister answer the first part of the question, which concerns United Kingdom visitors coming to the House of Commons?

Mr. Sproat: I do not know how many of the visitors to whom the hon. Gentleman referred came from abroad, but I assure him that they were given a warm welcome from this country.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the antics of Lancashire county council and the European Commission in their attempts to denigrate Blackpool, the Fylde coast, and Blackpool in particular, is still the premier tourist resort in Europe? Will he do all that he can to counter the efforts of the county council and the Commission to suggest that the beaches are not clean? The beaches have never been cleaner. Furthermore, will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to have a go on the new ride at Blackpool?

Mr. Sproat: I gladly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Blackpool. I think that I am right in remembering that turnover from tourism in Blackpool amounts to some £445 million a year and that there are more bed spaces in Blackpool than in the whole of Portugal.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: We should remember that Britain has much to offer visitors from the European Community—history, buildings and beautiful countryside. Therefore, is not it desperately sad that Britain's image in Europe is one of half-hearted membership? Would not we have far more visitors from Europe if the Government adopted a more positive and constructive approach to the European Community?

Mr. Sproat: We do adopt a constructive approach to the Community. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to hear that, for the first time, the number of visitors from France, a member of the European Union, has equalled the number of American visitors, although the French do not spend as much money.

National Lottery

Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects the national lottery to start.

Mr. Brooke: That will depend on the plans of the operator who is selected by the Director General of Oflot to run the national lottery. It is possible that the first lottery draw will be held at the end of 1994 or early in 1995.

Mr. Deva: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high standard of bidders for the national lottery bodes well for its future and that it is recognised that there is great potential for success for the good causes that the lottery is designed to benefit?

Mr. Brooke: I have not had access to the bids, but I have no doubt that, quantitatively, distinguished organisations entered the bidding as 375 boxes of information were placed in support of eight bids. The director general has had a lot to consider.

Ms Mowlam: Does the Secretary of State agree that public confidence in the national lottery is being seriously impaired by the appointment of Tory "placepeople" to the quangos responsible for implementing and allocating the money? An example of that is the recent appointment of the Conservative party treasurer to head the Charities Board? When will the right hon. Gentleman start putting the interests of the nation before those of the Conservative party?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady talks out of both sides of her mouth on the subject of the lottery, and I have to say that it is not a pretty sight. The information that, through early-day motions or other briefings, she has allowed to percolate through to the nation has frequently been inaccurate, and she is not doing the lottery any good.

Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the national lottery is likely to start much earlier and to be a much greater success if an operator with true experience is selected, rather than gimmickry?

Mr. Brooke: I have obviously seen the amendment that my hon. Friend tabled to an early-day motion on that subject. The director general will announce the name of the operator this week, so it would be improper of me to make any hypothetical observations on his announcement.

"Marshall Plan of the Mind"

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the BBC concerning its "Marshall Plan of the Mind" project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: I enjoyed attending the launch of the "Marshall Plan of the Mind" exhibition in the House, where I had various discussions but of a purely informal nature. The main responsibility for that initiative rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Barnes: Why is this crude capitalist propaganda being pushed out in the Russian media with the help of the Government know-how funds, and why does it have charitable status? Why does not the programme show what life is really like in free market Britain, with 5 million


unemployed, a third of our children living in poverty, 500,000 people on housing lists and 500,000 building workers out of work?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman misses the point of the programme. The purpose of the "Marshall Plan of the Mind" is to assist the people of Russia to make progress economically over a wide front and in a number of imaginative ways. The BBC has received extremely enthusiastic responses from the Russian audiences that have seen it and, frankly, the hon. Gentleman's question was a disgrace.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Has not that question at least provided my right hon. Friend with the opportunity to share with the House the true facts about the "Marshall Plan of the Mind" Would not it be a good thing if World Service Television and the "Marshall Plan of the Mind" were as successful as World Service on radio?
Should not we continue to demonstrate the benefits of flexible economics and politics and of dedication to self-improvement which, in many ways, has allowed this country to lead the world in broadcasting, publishing and spreading many of our technical skills?

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The BBC's reputation around the world has been earned because the world knows that the BBC tells of life in this country as it is. I am likewise grateful to my hon. Friend for rebutting the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).

Southall Town Hall

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the chairman of English Heritage to discuss the sale of Southall town hall.

Mr. Sproat: I have not had cause to do so.

Mr. Khabra: Does the Minister recall that I wrote to him and to the Prime Minister to express anxiety about the previous Tory council's decision to sell the town hall, which is a public property used for the benefit of the community? Will he join me in applauding the new Labour-controlled Ealing council's decision to take it off the market and preserve it for the benefit of the community? Does he agree that it was the unpopular policies pursued by the then Tory administration in Ealing which led to its losing heavily to the Labour party in the local election?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with me in my capacity as a Minister at the Department of National Heritage but if he believes that the town hall should be listed, I should be glad to receive further evidence from him.

Tourism

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what analysis he has made of the latest figures on spending by tourists.

Mr. Sproat: Domestic tourism generated approximately £19.7 billion in 1992 while overseas visitors spent £9.2 billion here in 1993, some 17 per cent. more than in 1992. An all-time record 19.1 million overseas visitors came to

the United Kingdom in 1993, an increase of 3 per cent. on 1992. There are encouraging signs that 1994 will also be a good year for the industry.

Mr. Arnold: Is not it significant that, despite a world recession, record numbers of tourists are coming to the United Kingdom and that their spending has increased vastly? Will my hon. Friend comment on the work of the British tourism authorities and the part that they have played, through their offices abroad, in that significant success?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I am glad to acknowledge the role played by the British tourism authorities. Their role is extremely important, which is why we have increased their funding at a time of recession and cuts elsewhere. As for visitors, the number coming from north America may have been underestimated; there may be more than we have accounted for so far.

National Lottery

Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what response he has received to the National Lottery etc. Act 1993; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: I have received a very positive response to the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 from a wide range of groups and individuals throughout the country.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that, consistent with the requirement of the National Lottery etc. Act, the director of Oflot chooses as the operator of the lottery the company that can guarantee the largest possible return for the arts, sport, heritage and charities? That is, after all, the reason why the lottery was set up.

Mr. Brooke: I have absolute confidence in the decision that the Director General of Oflot will make and that he will make it in accordance with the wording of the Act to which my hon. and learned Friend has just referred.

Tourism

Mrs. Browning: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding deregulation and tourism; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: I have received an enormous number of representations, both orally and in writing, about the damaging effect of regulations on tourism businesses. Very few of these fall under my Department.

Mrs. Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that the burden of over-regulation on the tourism industry has been onerous? Although that problem may not fall directly on his Department, will he please liaise with the necessary Departments of Government so that he can impress on other Ministers exactly how important this industry is, especially to the west country, and how burdens are stopping small businesses, especially in the tourism areas, progressing?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I gladly agree with my hon. Friend, especially on tourism in the west country. She plays a major part in helping to draw the attention of the House to its importance. We have discovered more than 90


regulations that have impacted badly on the tourist industry. We have divided them into seven main sections and I have taken them up individually with the Ministers responsible in other Departments. We are certainly seeing some progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Malcolm Kennedy

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to call the former PC Giles as a witness in respect of the prosecution of Malcolm Kennedy.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Day-to-day decisions on the conduct of cases are matters for the independent prosecuting authorities and prosecution counsel.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General recall that when the Lord Chief Justice quashed Mr. Kennedy's conviction, he said that all the new evidence should be put before a new jury? Why, then, did the Crown Prosecution Service go to such lengths to keep the evidence of PC Giles from the jury? Is the Attorney-General aware that there is a widespread feeling among those who take an interest in those matters that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman should remember that those are matters for the independent courts. The issue was fully canvassed before the court and ruled on by the judge. The defendant's advisers will, no doubt, be considering whether to take the matter further on appeal.

Crown Prosecution Service, Essex

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Attorney-General if he will pay an official visit to the Crown Prosecution Service in Essex to discuss its performance.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I visited the Chelmsford branch of the Crown Prosecution Service on 23 February this year.

Mr. Jenkin: May I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the excellent working relationship between the Colchester police and the Crown Prosecution Service? Is not this an example that other forces should follow?

The Solicitor-General: No visit to the Crown Prosecution Service is complete without a visit to the police administration support unit which serves it. The units ensure that files are properly prepared before the police submit them to the Crown Prosecution Service. When I was in Chelmsford, I found that there was excellent co-operation between administration support units and the CPS, including in the area to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General agree, having visited Colchester, as he visited other offices, that there is a persistent problem in the Crown Prosecution Service—the inconsistency in the decisions on whether to prosecute? Now that the number of areas has been reduced to 13, a greater consistency in prosecution policy should be achievable.

The Solicitor-General: When I went to Sheffield, I had a long talk with one of the senior Crown prosecutors, who is known to the hon. Gentleman. Like the Crown prosecutors at Chelmsford and Colchester, she made no such complaint.

Scott Inquiry

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he will be giving evidence again to the Scott inquiry.

The Attorney-General: I have received no request to give further evidence, but if I did, I would.

Mr. Winnick: I note that reply. Would the Attorney-General do his very best to stop the way in which some Government supporters are undoubtedly orchestrating attempts to discredit the Scott inquiry before it reaches its conclusions? Should not the Scott inquiry be fully supported as it looks into the ways in which, undoubtedly, Parliament was lied to over arms being sent to one of the most criminal regimes?

The Attorney-General: Every aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question seems to me to be one of conjecture.

Mr. Burns: Is not the best advice that my right and learned hon. Friend can give that people should await the announcement of the results of the Scott inquiry, and then he would not have to put up with silly questions such as that?

The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Morris: Does the Attorney-General recall his recent answer that the special nature of the certificates signed by the President of the Board of Trade was expressly drawn to Lord Justice Scott's attention? He said that
it leapt from the page".—[Official Report, 25 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 14.]
Is that the best answer that he can give? Does he still feel that he has carried out his obligation to the President? Does he recall telling the inquiry that his certificate was "ambiguous" and that it did not reflect clearly the President's view that documents should have been disclosed? Would not it be better for the Attorney-General to do himself justice and to volunteer to go back to the inquiry?

The Attorney-General: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of what I said last time, which was:
Nobody reading that specially designed certificate who had any understanding of the subject of public interest immunity could fail to realise that it was a special certificate designed to leave the decision on whether the documents should be disclosed to the defence to the judge."—[Official Report, 25 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 14.]
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that.

Mr. Maclennan: Did the Attorney-General give the same general advice to both the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to their duty on disclosure? If he did, why do their evidence and their public statements appear to be so contradictory?

The Attorney-General: In fact, I was asked to advise only one Minister, and that was the President.

Crown Prosecution Service (Delays)

Mr. Steen: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about delays in prosecuting cases by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Attorney-General: It is the aim of the Crown Prosecution Service to work closely with the police and the courts to keep delays to a minimum.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for the full investigations that he has made into the case of Mrs. Chappell, an elderly lady who was knocked over on a pedestrian crossing and who had to wait a year, which was far too long, before the magistrates court finally made a decision. Will he confirm that, although the Crown Prosecution Service was not at fault, there were delays, both in the courts and by the police? Will he ensure that some investigation is made so that the public have greater confidence in the speed at which justice is carried out and that there is not such incompetence as there was in that case?

The Attorney-General: The first thing to make clear is that, of course, the Crown Prosecution Service comes into a case only when it is drawn to its attention by the police. In that case, it took the police some time to investigate. However, it also took some time to bring the case on to trial, not least because of a request by the defence for quite a long adjournment.

Crown Prosecution Service, Hereford and Worcester

Mr. Luff: To ask the Attorney-General if he will pay an official visit to the Crown Prosecution Service in Hereford and Worcester to discuss its performance.

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General last visited offices of the Crown Prosecution Service in the Severn-Thames area, of which Hereford and Worcester is a part, in November of last year and will be visiting another office in the same area next month.

Mr. Luff: During those visits to Crown Prosecution Service offices, has my right hon. and learned Friend had his attention drawn to the fact that discontinuance rates are falling sharply all around the country? Should not that development be warmly welcomed?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is quite right. Not only are discontinuances falling, but case loads are rising. The number of discontinuances fell from about 193,000 in 1992 to 175,000 last year. The number of cases received has risen in the magistrates court for the quarter ending March 1994 by 1.7 per cent. and in the Crown court by 2.4 per cent.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Solicitor-General: The main activity of the Crown Prosecution Service is the efficient and effective prosecution of criminal cases.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that assaults on members of the police force are

being satisfactorily dealt with by various authorities? Is not it time to review all aspects of charging in the light of recent cases?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend's advice is well given. We have set up a working group, which will be staffed by both police and senior CPS lawyers, to ensure that there is greater consistency of charges in assault cases. If my hon. Friend were to spend 15 minutes behind the desk of the custody suite at his local police station, he would see the circumstances in which the custody officer has to decide what is the appropriate charge in any given case. If, a few weeks later, he were to go to his local branch office of the CPS and see the circumstances in which the same case were reviewed by a lawyer, who will have far more information available to him, he would recognise that it is not surprising that charges sometimes have to be altered. That is not a criticism of either the police or the lawyers who deal with a particular case.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Belize

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding from his Department was spent on development in Belize in 1993–94; and what is planned for the current year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Expenditure for 1993–94 was in excess of £5 million and we expect to maintain that level in 1994–95.

Mr. Gunnell: Given the £9 million reduction in defence spending does the Minister feel that there is a case for increasing development aid to Belize? An increase would allow, as it were, for some of the difficulties that are continuing because of illicit drug trafficking. Would not increasing development in the area strengthen the economy and strengthen the fight against drug trafficking?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Aid has been increasing modestly over the past few years. From the year before last to last year it was increased. We hope to meet the problems that Belize has by retaining in part, in the defence area, a resident training programme of about 100 men and a substantial aid programme. The aid represents a large sum per head—it is £30 per capita. We are already helping with the Southern highway, and we shall possibly consider giving more aid.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the context of Belize and other lesser developed nations, it is quality that counts, not quantity, and that the British overseas aid programme is one of the finest in the world?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right. Our aid programme is one of the finest in the world. It is targeted to the poorest nations and it has proved extremely effective. It has often been commented on by international agencies when comparing one country's aid programme with another.

Human Rights

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are used in determining whether there has been gross human rights abuse in countries in receipt of British aid.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Judgments concerning human rights are based on assessments of individual country circumstances. Those are judged in the light of universal and internationally agreed standards.

Mr. Gapes: Why is it that China is the fifth country in the list of countries receiving British aid, why is Indonesia the 11th, why has Britain's aid to China increased from £21 million to £35 million last year and why did we spend £21 million on Indonesia? Given their appalling human rights records—Tiananmen square on the one hand and East Timor on the other—why is it that we give aid and trade provision support to China and Indonesia?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in Chinese affairs and is a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The view that he expresses are very much out of line with those of the Select Committee, which in its report suggested that it was only right that we should continue to have a relationship with China. The principles of aid have to take into account not only human rights, which the hon. Gentleman has identified, but other factors. China is a large country in which we have a modest programme. It is wiser to be in there discussing matters and making our views known to the Chinese than to be breaking off any relationship with them.

Sir John Stanley: As Rwanda must be one of the countries in which the most gross abuses of human rights are occurring, what steps will the Government now take to take further measures to save life in that country and to alleviate the desperate suffering that is occurring there?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend raises the most dreadful and barbaric tragedy in the world at this moment. He will be aware that we have announced emergency relief aid worth £3.3 million in the past few weeks. I have no doubt that further consideration to other assistance will be given in due course.

Mr. Harvey: Should not the human rights records of countries be considered consistently throughout the aid programme? Given that countries like Kenya and Malawi have, at various points in time, had aid withdrawn, why do large sums continue to be given to Indonesia, particularly given the record of East Timor?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, every country must be considered on a case-by-case basis. We make our concerns about human rights very clearly known in Indonesia. However, there are attempts to improve the situation and Indonesia has a terrific record of relieving poverty. The incidence of poverty in 1970 was 60 per cent. and that was reduced to 15 per cent. in 1990. Aid for what is still a relatively poor country, and for what was a very poor country, is being extremely well used.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree that, despite its history, Uganda's human rights performance has improved immensely? In view of that, how are the Government going to respond to the President's plea for

assistance to deal with the problem of the 40,000 or more bodies in Lake Victoria, which are a result of the genocide in Rwanda? Does not the international community have a responsibility to respond to that plea in the light of the forthcoming catastrophe in public health both in Uganda and in neighbouring countries?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly we recognise that terrible aspect of what is already a terrible problem. We are responding to the appeal of President Museveni by giving assistance to the Save the Children Fund, which is working with the Lutheran World Service to clear and to bury the bodies on the north-western shores of Lake Victoria.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend accept from the Conservative Benches that we, too, are deeply concerned about the situation in Rwanda and about the problems set out by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) with regard to Lake Victoria? Will my hon. Friend also consider the fact that one of the reasons why Uganda would have difficulty in providing the necessary resources is that one third of its entire budget goes on paying back interest on debt? Would not it be sensible to recognise that Uganda has now, with the recent elections, established a degree of stability that should lead us to do everything possible to suspend the debt in Uganda as an example to the rest of Africa?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend will be aware that Britain was foremost in initiating the Trinidad terms for debt relief and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, did so in 1990. Twenty-two countries have benefited, 17 in Africa. However, that debt relief is based on criteria which have been carefully worked out to help the poorest nations, not the middle-income nations. Those criteria must apply wherever debt relief is applied. If Uganda comes within those criteria—I cannot at the moment answer my hon. Friend on that point—it will be eligible for consideration by the Paris Club.

Overseas Aid

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had in the European Union Council of Ministers about the levels of overseas aid provided by member countries.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Discussions in the European Union Council of Development Ministers, including the meeting held on 6 May, regularly cover the issues of aid volume and aid policy.

Mr. Wareing: Has the Minister been able to explain to his European counterparts how Britain, alone among European Union countries to have the benefit of revenues from North sea oil over the past decade, spends only 0.30 per cent. of gross national product on overseas aid, which is well below the 0.45 per cent. average of European Community countries? Can he perhaps take advice from some of his counterparts in the EC about how that position might be improved?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The important thing for the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind is that in the past eight years our aid volumes have increased by 10 per cent. in real terms, that 80 per cent. of the aid is targeted to the poorest


countries and that there is a substantial amount of private investment from Britain in the poor world—half of the European Community total of overseas investment, about £1.7 billion worth in 1992, came from Britain.

Mr. Lester: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government play a major part in influencing the spending of the European development fund so that it fulfils the policy that we pursue with our fund, and therefore achieves the most good?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. We play a leading role in aid co-ordination in the European Community and are great supporters of the Horizon 2000 initiative, which promotes co-ordination at all levels between member states. Several of our leading officials are seconded to the European Community to help the community to determine its aid budget priorities.

Points of Order

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At column 1080 of the Hansard published today of Friday's proceedings on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, at the foot of that column, after the paragraph beginning "For example", there is an intervention wrongly attributed to me, which is very damaging as to my standing in relation to the Bill. I have had a word with the Editor of Hansard about the mistake. It is one, I feel, that should be very urgently corrected, for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who reads it who was here.
The other point, briefly, is that you, Madam Speaker, will know that there has been a demonstration by disabled people here today. I was not informed of the reason—

Mr. John Marshall: What is the point of order?

Mr. Morris: I have raised a point of order about a mistake in column 1080 and I am asking for any guidance you, Madam Speaker, can give disabled people in answer to the question, "How can we possibly win, what more can we do when we have a parliamentary majority for the Bill?" I know it is very difficult, Madam Speaker, but there is very strong feeling among disabled people that they are not getting anywhere by the parliamentary process.

Madam Speaker: Of course I have to answer to the House and not to any individual or group outside it. The right hon. Gentleman is really asking how he can pursue the issue and I quite understand his and many others' frustrations about this. May I suggest to him that he has to use the usual channels or approach the Leader of the House about further time for this; or there are the recess Adjournment motions later this week—he might like to attempt it through that method.

Mr. Morris: On the Hansard point, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: On the Hansard point, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has in fact corrected it himself and I will certainly follow through to see that it is corrected.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, as you may be aware, at about 11 o'clock, a number of disabled persons wanted to get into the House of Commons, and I agreed that I would see them and take them round Parliament. They wanted to go through the main entrance. They were stopped by the Serjeant at Arms, who said that he was not prepared to see them trying to get up the steps. He then told me that they could go round through the big carriage gates. They decided to do it as an act of symbolism—to crawl on their hands and knees against what has happened to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. When they got to the carriage gates, although they had been promised access that way, the gates were shut in their faces.
It is one thing for the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to kick away the crutches of those disabled people, but I think that it is an affront when, in parliamentary terms, they are not allowed to go through the main entrance and they are not allowed to crawl their way through the side entrance either. When will you, as Speaker

of the House, ensure that the Serjeant at Arms allows disabled people to have the same rights of access to this building as anyone else?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the entire House are fully aware that there is access for disabled people through New— [Interruption.] Just a moment; I am speaking. This is very serious. There is right of access to the House through New Palace Yard for disabled people. I believe that this morning some disabled people were unfortunately encouraged by some Members of the House to crawl— [Interruption.] Order. Listen to what I have to say. They were encouraged to crawl up the steps at St. Stephen's entrance, for the benefit of the media. They were informed that they could approach through New Palace Yard. If those gates were not open, I will make it my business to find out why. That is the entrance for disabled people. There are facilities there to help them enter every level of the House. I believe that the dignity of the disabled should be respected as much as that of any individual Member of this House.

Ms Liz Lynne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Now that she has returned from Malawi, has the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said whether she is prepared to come to the House to apologise for misleading the House about who drafted the amendments that were tabled in her name to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Six and a half million disabled people will suffer because of her actions.

Madam Speaker: The matter is still under consideration. I made representations to the hon. Lady. The letter went to Malawi. I expect to hear from her before this day is out.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Further to the earlier point of order, Madam Speaker. I came through the New Palace Yard gates at 2 pm. There were several disabled people there. The gates were not shut. I understood from the police that they could have come in two at a time with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) if they so wished, but he was nowhere to be seen.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that 11 years ago I, too, introduced a Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. On that occasion, rather similar tactics were used against my Bill, with the support of the Government. However, Lord Longford introduced a similar Bill to the House of Lords and came within 12 votes of being successful. If a noble Lord took up the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and it was successful, would it take precedence over other private Members' Bills entering the House?

Madam Speaker: I do not give procedural advice of that nature across the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman might do well to seek that advice from the Public Bill Office.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to the point of order of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). May I point out that in the proceedings two weeks ago last Friday my right hon. Friend is recorded in Hansard as intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to correct him when he referred to my right hon. Friend as an hon. Member. Everyone knows


that my right hon. Friend is one of the most modest Members of the House and that he would never have said such a thing. I said it, and I am greatly surprised to be told by Hansard that, although the error can be corrected in the bound volume, it cannot be pointed out in the meantime. Is it possible for a future edition of Hansard to put the record straight?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have to refer that to the appropriate Committee.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Further to the earlier point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that—very adequately, if I may say so. It had better be a new point of order, otherwise I cannot hear it. Is it further to that point of order?

Mr. McMaster: It is a new point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will be aware, the Accommodation and Works Committee is currently considering the topic of access to the Palace by disabled people. Last week, I gave evidence on behalf of the all-party disablement group to that Committee. Although I understand what you said in your ruling about the dignity of disabled people, one of the points that was made strongly in the Committee last week—

Madam Speaker: Order. Matters that are dealt with in Committees are not matters for me. It is not a point of order for me. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I will hear it, but I am afraid that we are getting into a debate. What happened in Committee is not a matter for me.

Mr. McMaster: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but the signals that the Chamber sends out this afternoon will be important to that Committee. Surely it should be set out that disabled people—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any way in which amendments could possibly be tabled earlier? I ask the question because on 11 March, as you know, the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was passed with 231 votes in favour and none against. In Committee, for which I know you are not responsible, not one Government amendment was tabled. When the Bill came back to the House on Report, more than 80 Government amendments had been tabled, although not in the name of the Government, to ensure that the Bill to help 6.5 million disabled people was killed off. Is there any way in which an indication could be given previously so that people would know that the Government were determined to kill any attempt at legislation to help the disabled?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member himself can be extremely helpful in that matter. He is a member of the Procedure Committee which is already examining the procedure for private Members' Bills. I have submitted a reference to the Committee myself.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of both order and, to be candid, frustration, Madam Speaker. How come questions properly placed on the Order Paper—including one of substance to the Prime Minister—for Thursday have now suddenly evaporated by alchemy from the Order Paper? Did not it used to be the case that when questions were accepted for a Thursday—even if the dates of recesses were changed—they were taken, and the House then proceeded to the Adjournment debate? Was not that the situation?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must have missed a motion which was on the Order Paper and an announcement which I made a few days ago. If he would like me to direct him to the motion, I will do so. There was a motion on the Order Paper, and the hon. Gentleman may well have missed it.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The baying from the Conservative Benches during points of order was entirely inappropriate, because there is genuine anger outside about what happened to—

Madam Speaker: Order. I need a point of order, and not a long statement.

Mr. Foulkes: I have been asked by people outside to ask you whether there is anything that you or the House can do in relation to the code conduct of Ministers. People outside cannot understand how a Minister can secretly draft amendments, not tell the truth to the House and still continue as a Minister.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been through this a number of times, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer. I have given him the answer already. [Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Gentleman listens, he might like to tell whoever is interested that the entire procedure for private Members' Bills is now before the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you take the opinions and decisions of the House seriously. Will you confirm that you will take seriously, and would like to see acted upon, the decision made by the House on a motion brought in by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) that opportunity should be found to discuss and vote on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?

Madam Speaker: That is a matter for the House, and not for the Chair.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

That the draft Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 20

BUILDING REGULATIONS: POWER TO REPEAL OR MODIFY PROVISIONS OF LOCAL ACTS

Amendment made: No. 80, in page 20, line 5, at end insert—
'(2) In section 14 of that Act (consultation) there shall be inserted at the end—
(4) Before making any building regulations containing provision of the kind authorised by paragraph 11(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to this Act, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Building Regulations Advisory Committee,
(b) such persons or bodies as appear to him to be representative of local authorities, and
(c) such other bodies as appear to him to be representative of the interests concerned.".'.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Clause 22

RIVAL MARKET NOT TO CONSTITUTE DISTURBANCE

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 20, leave out lines 24 to 40.—[Sir Michael Neubert.]

Clause 23

REPEAL OF OFFENCES WHICH RESTRICT COMPETITION IN RELATION TO MARKETS

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 20, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 21—[Mr. Fatchett.]

Clause 24

REPEAL OF CERTAIN POWERS TO MAKE BYE-LAWS IN RELATION TO MARKETS

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 21, leave out lines 19 to 25.—[Sir Michael Neubert.]

Clause 25

CONTROLS ON LONDON LORRIES: REPLACEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY EXCEPTIONS

Amendment made: No. 82, in page 22, leave out line 25 and insert—'(9) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit; and any such order shall be made'.—[Mr. Norris.]

Schedule 8

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES ETC: REPLACEMENT OF LICENSING

Amendment made: No. 81, in page 85, leave out lines 12 to 20.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Schedule 9

MISCELLANEOUS DEREGULATORY PROVISIONS: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 84, in page 88, line 14, leave out `and' and insert `to'.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Clause 30

EXTENT OF CHAPTER II

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 24, line 25, after `16,' insert—
'[Controls on fund-raising for charitable institutions: exclusion of connected companies], '.

No. 104, in page 24, line 25, leave out '22 to'.

No. 79, in page 24, line 39, leave out '14 and' and insert `13 to' .—[Mr. Norris.]

Clause 34

DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 27, line 31, leave out `(c)' and insert '(d)'.

No. 26, in page 27, line 43, after 'is' insert 'available and'.

No. 27, in page 27, line 45, at end insert—
'(d) the capacity of the place so specified (if there is only one) or of both or all the places so specified taken together (if there are more than one) is sufficient to provide an operating centre for all the vehicles used under the licence.'.—[Mr. Norris.]

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 28, line 14, leave out
`and may assume that those undertakings will be fulfilled'.

Madam Speaker: With this, we may discuss the following amendments: No. 22, in page 28, line 20, leave out
`and may assume that any conditions so attached will not be contravened'.

No. 23, in clause 38, page 36, line 28, at end insert—
`(dd) that during those five years the licence holder has, in the opinion of the authority, at any time operated otherwise than with due regard for the requirements of road safety and grounds (a) to (d) above and (f) below do not apply'.

No. 19, in clause 49, page 46, line 9, leave out
`and may assume that those undertakings will be fulfilled'.

No. 20, in clause 49, page 46, line 27, leave out
'and may assume that those undertakings will be fulfilled'.

Mr. Fatchett: Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 would remove some of the assumptions in the Bill, especially about undertakings given and conditions that may or may not be met. The amendments would make the licensing authorities more able to consider certain issues and to see whether they are pursued.
That is the technical nature of the amendments, but the real reason for the debate is the safety of heavy goods vehicles and coaches, which greatly concerns the general public.
Why this debate in this form at this stage? The answer is easy. It is because safety is a key element of the Bill and a theme which came up time and again in Committee and on Report. It is a question of the balance between various interests.
The Government's definition is that the deregulatory process is stimulated by removing a burden on industry. To be fair, the Government also refer in the Bill to the need for


necessary protection. Our concern throughout has been the need for a balance between the various interests—those interests that are legitimately represented by business and industry and those represented by employees, consumers and the general public.
We would argue that the Government have listened to industry and not to other interest groups with a valuable opinion, which should be listened to, on safety and the general public interest.
We have just heard a series of points of order about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The Government response to the issues in that Bill has always been to point out the burden to industry. Nothing could illustrate the argument on deregulation better than the Government's response to that Bill. Their short-sighted and limited perspective meant that they talked simply about one range of burdens and one area of interest. We argue that under that legislation and in many other cases broader interests have to be taken into account. Nowhere is that more vividly illustrated than in relation to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, as many people have a direct interest in that legislation.
The role of good government and good administration is to weigh those interests, achieve a balance and ensure that all the voices are heard. As much of the ideology that underpins the Bill shows, the Government are driven by just one of those interests: the industrial interest. They are taking little or no account of the interests of employees, consumers or the general public.
In the context of the safety of heavy goods and commercial vehicles, I believe that a variety of interests need to be taken into account. It is not just the industry itself that should be listened to; the Government should listen to the police, the public, those who travel on buses and those who live in areas that are affected by buses and heavy goods vehicles. We fear that the Government will listen only to the voice of industry and not to these other important voices; and the amendment is designed to tease out the balance that the Government intend to strike, and to include in the Bill a greater commitment to the general points of safety that I have already mentioned.
The bus and heavy goods vehicle industries have faced severe economic competition and suffered to a considerable extent as a result of the recession—in many respects, as a result of Government policy. These are clearly industries that have to deal with great pressure on costs. Our concern is that the Government are giving a wink and a nod to those who may see the Bill as a sign that they may take short cuts with safety and maintenance standards as a way of dealing with the pressure on their costs. We have argued throughout that the Government should have as their first priority not just the industry but the general interests of the public.
There is no great backing for these provisions in any case. They are yet another example of the Government's trying to save a relatively small sum of money without necessarily gaining the support of much of the industry or of other organisations. For instance, Headlight, a trade magazine which speaks for the industry and is widely distributed in the industry, has argued that the current legal controls have provided worthwhile benefits in terms of vehicle condition and driver standards. People fear that if

the Government reduce these legal and administrative controls they will be giving cowboy operators a sign that standards can be further reduced.
The Police Federation has expressed its alarm at the prospect of continuous licensing—the essence of this part of the Bill—for heavy goods vehicles and buses:
Any licence relating to an operator's fleet size, business premises and hours of business granted in perpetuity could severely affect the safety of members of the public and have a detrimental effect on environmental factors.
So the police are unhappy about the proposals embodied in the Bill.
The public have good reason to be genuinely concerned about safety issues. The figures are appalling: in 1992, the latest year for which we have available figures, 742 people died in road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. HGV accidents are also likely to be more serious than road accidents generally—4 per cent. of people caught up in accidents involving heavy goods vehicles incurred fatal injuries, compared with only 1 per cent. overall. All the evidence, in fact, points to the need for the current system to be maintained or toughened up, not weakened.
The annual report of the licensing authorities shows that there has been a huge increase in disciplinary action taken against vehicle operators, from 742 cases in 1991–92 to 1,255 in 1992–93. In 611 of those cases, the offence was serious enough to result in a licence being taken away. The most common reasons for licences being revoked were poor maintenance, overloading and drivers' hours. The number of HGV drivers' conduct cases referred to the licensing authorities has also increased, from 47,000 to 50,593.
When we dealt with these issues in Committee, my hon. Friends spoke about a number of surveys on the increased pressure on drivers' hours, safety and stress. They made it abundantly clear that the industry will be deregulated at great risk and at a loss to the public of safety standards.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will agree with the hon. Gentleman's serious points about the need to reduce stress and to maintain regulations on drivers' hours and on vehicle condition. The hon. Gentleman says that he would not favour the introduction of continuous licensing. How are the two issues linked and why would it not be possible to revoke continuous licences?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman may be well advised to read some of the arguments in Committee when the point was explored in great detail. I have quoted the view of the Police Federation and I certainly maintain that there is substantial symbolism in the Government's action. I warned the Minister at the time—I think that on this issue, if on no other, the general public would be on my side —that the evidence and the image being presented by the Government is that they are prepared to take a risk with safety.
The Police Federation and some people in the industry argue that there is a virtue in continuous licensing, and the Government are making a mistake in appearing to soften the regime. That is essentially what we said in Committee and what we shall be saying in this debate.
As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) rightly said, the figures are serious. There has been a series of tragic events about which some of my hon. Friends will speak in relation to their constituencies, and I shall not delay the House by going through specific incidents. However, some of them have clearly shown that the current


safety regime is not strong enough. Comments from magistrates, coroners and the police show that they do not wish to see a softening of standards, but would like to see them toughened for goods vehicles and coaches.
By stretching the amendment slightly, one could relate that to the public concern about safety standards for minibuses. There have recently been a number of incidents involving school minibuses. There was an incident at the weekend about which there was a public outcry, and the reaction was that we need tougher safety standards and that there should be legislation to ensure the compulsory fitting of seat belts.
I introduce those issues to show that the Government have got the balance wrong and that public concern on these issues is for greater safety. They wish to see standards improved for their own good and for the good of those who travel by coach or by other forms of regular transport.
There is a strong argument for industry to have the highest possible safety standards. If standards are reduced, the only organisations that will benefit will be those that are prepared to take short cuts to cut costs. The law should be tough on those organisations and sanctions should be severe. The good operator will lose out and the not-so-good and the cowboy will benefit. That is in nobody's interest: our interests should be to maintain or improve standards.
Our amendment would toughen the system and make sure that there was power to investigate what was going on. It would ensure that safety standards are rigorously enforced. That is what the public and good operators in the heavy goods vehicle and coach industries want. For those reasons, I commend the amendments.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House and the country will understand that there is a need for operator licensing. For environmental protection, for ensuring that there is a responsible manager, and for other reasons, that system should continue.
The point before the House is whether there is a significant detrimental risk by moving to continuous operator licences. I do not think that there is.
There is a danger that, in arguing about specific cases, which, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, might happen in this relatively short debate, we lose sight of how we cut the number of casualties on our roads.
Without wanting in any way to diminish the anguish that is felt by any family affected by a road crash—I often wish that we could refer to road crashes rather than accidents, because they have causes—and without wanting in any way to diminish the importance of taking further measures to reduce the consequences of a crash, I do not think that it is sensible to have this kind of debate without putting on record what was said during the debate on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill last week.
4 pm
Since the Government set the target of cutting the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 30 per cent. by 2000, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in traffic. So the index of traffic has increased from 100 to 140. The number of tragedies involving deaths and serious injuries has been cut by a third. So the index for casualties has gone down from 100 to 70.
Those figures show that, in the past eight years, the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads has halved in relation to the amount of traffic. That is not a fully fair comparison, because it does not take into account the special needs of the vulnerable road users.
It is clear that when a crash involves a heavy goods vehicle, especially if it is laden, it will be more severe on the people in the vehicle, or those without a vehicle, who are hit by it. It is also clear that when a vehicle comes down a hill and crashes in the town, as happened in one of the very sad incidents of the past year and a half, it has a devastating effect on the people involved.
It is right, if I may say so in the margins of the debate, that people in minibuses should wear seat belts, and that they should be provided by the people who run them, but those issues can take us too far away from other truths that are important. Statistics show that, if I am a passenger in a minibus, I am one third less at risk than I would be as a passenger in an ordinary car. If our debates get people to move from minibuses to cars, we are increasing the risk on present seat belt wearing. It is possible to reduce the risks significantly, but we should be saying that minibuses are good things. We have more of them than other countries. We have the information and we should go on trying to use it.
On heavy goods vehicles, anyone who has had the opportunity of seeing the enforcement agencies at work will know that it is enforcement that matters, by transport managers and by the authorities, and that, of those, enforcement by the transport managers is the most important.
I should like to see further disciplinary action taken against managers whose tachograph records show that their drivers persistently exceed the legal speed limit. There may be difficulty in prosecuting a driver for going above the legal speed limit, because one cannot say where the excess speed took place—under our present law one needs to be able to do that—but the tachograph provides evidence of when drivers persistently exceed the limits.
The same applies to offences over drivers' hours. Transport managers should be held accountable, because that sort of issue matters so much more than whether there is continuous licensing. I do not think that moving to continuous licensing will make a significant difference to firms. Other areas of deregulation make more sense. The ridiculous bureaucracy involved in getting exemptions from the London lorry ban is one of the most stupid things that I have ever seen, but that might be for another occasion.
If the debate is focused on casualty reduction, let us remember why we have the lowest casualty rate on our roads compared to other parts of the motorised world. It is because we focus on the things that matter most. If we left it to the sort of issues that get into the headlines, we would find that we were spending all the money on motorway fog crashes, the minibus type of issue or the unusual coach crash.
We have improved the figures dramatically because of a partnership between the Department of Transport and the Transport Research Laboratory, to which I pay a well-earned tribute. I think that the Government are wrong in privatising it, as Ministers need to have confidence in the advice that they get from people who look at the road environment, the vehicle characteristics and the road user behaviour. I also pay tribute to the parliamentary advisory council on transport safety—which, in so many ways, has


helped us to focus on the issues that matter most—to drivers and their representatives, and to the Freight Transport and Road Haulage Associations. They understand what matters; it is they who are buying the newer vehicles, which are safer and provide greater comfort for drivers who spend their professional lives on our roads.
With the help of the European Community, we have contributed to the simplification of regulations governing drivers' hours and rest breaks, but more needs to be done. I feel that the amendments—probing though they may be —do not concentrate on the issues that matter enormously; I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central does not mind my saying so.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I urge the Minister to support amendment No. 21. The Bill contains many irresponsible proposals, but none grieves me more than the proposal to stop requiring operators of vehicles such as buses to reapply for their licences every five years. Under the Bill drivers will, in effect, obtain licences for life. The Government may argue that depots will be open to inspection every five years, and that there will be a requirement to make that public by means of advertising; the truth is, however, that to all intents and purposes the ability of local people to object has been destroyed.
In September last year a tragic accident occurred at Sowerby Bridge, which is in my constituency. A 10-tonne lorry with no brake linings ploughed into a BT van and demolished a newsagent's shop and two terraced houses. The drivers of both vehicles died, and three young mothers and a two-year-old toddler lost their lives. Words cannot describe the sense of loss felt by the people of that small town: the whole town mourned with the friends and relatives of those who had died, and those who witnessed the accident will bear the emotional scars for the rest of their lives.
The inquest revealed that the 10-tonne lorry had no brake linings and had not been serviced for 60 days. The coroner's report urged the Department of Transport to toughen safety inspection procedures. The Minister for Roads and Traffic replied that he would consider the coroner's suggestions, but that it was generally felt that the number of lorries involved in serious accidents was very small indeed.
Only this morning, at 7 am, yet another lorry went out of control at the very same spot. Miraculously, the driver managed to steer the lorry into a wall—it appears that the brakes may have failed—and walked away unharmed. The Minister may say that the number of such accidents is very small, but they seem to be becoming all too common in Sowerby Bridge. I cannot begin to imagine the fear and worry that must have gone through the minds of all who were involved in the previous fatal accident.
I am calling for tighter road safety legislation, not a relaxation of such legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) pointed out—and it is worth repeating—that in 1992 742 people died in road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. Of all the lorries stopped by the vehicle inspectorate, 20 per cent. were deemed unsafe enough to have an immediate prohibition notice slapped on them. If the Bill is passed it will drive a 12-lane highway through the vehicle inspection system and cowboy operators will be free to put unsafe vehicles on to our roads. All the evidence points to a need to strengthen the current system rather than weakening it.
My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the annual report of the licensing authorities, which showed a huge increase in disciplinary action against vehicle operations. That figure, too, is worth repeating: it has risen from 742 cases in 1991–92 to 1,255 in 1992–93. That is a very worrying trend. I urge the Government not to ignore that worrying statistic.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central said, many respected institutions such as the Association of District Councils, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Police Federation oppose this type of deregulation. Surely any responsible Minister should hesitate before ignoring such experienced and expert opinion.
Since the terrible accident at Sowerby Bridge, there has been yet another frightening accident, this time involving a school bus and a lorry. Ironically, yet again it involved a school bus from Christchurch junior school in Sowerby Bridge. Earlier this month, the school coach was travelling to Whitby when it ran into the back of a lorry on the outskirts of Pickering. Fortunately, the injuries sustained by the nine children and two adults involved were reasonably minor, although the shock and horror of the experience will stay with them for a long time. On hearing about the accident, I contacted the head of the school, who was able to reassure me about the injuries sustained by the children. Nevertheless, the feeling that history was repeating itself was uppermost in all our minds.
I have always supported the fitting of seat belts on school buses, but that accident made me take a long hard look at the issue of children travelling on school buses, not only on trips, but on a daily basis. The wearing of seat belts on school buses must be made compulsory. Only last week we heard of the tragic accident involving children from Keighley who were returning by coach from a camping trip. Two eight-year old cub scouts and a 42-year-old man were killed instantly and others were dreadfully injured.
In the face of such appalling tragedies, I do not see how any Minister can continue to resist the call for legislation making it compulsory for bus operators to fit seat belts. The "Belt up School Kids Campaign" has said that
over the past year there has been an average of an accident a week involving school buses, leaving more than 20 children dead and hundreds injured.
Whatever Conservative Members say, that is a dreadful statistic and if we can do anything about it, we have a duty to do so. Those statistics provide all the evidence that the Government need; if they ignore the calls from all sides for the compulsory fitting of seat belts, they will have to accept responsibility for any further accidents and deaths.
If the Government really care about the safety of children being transported to school, a thorough investigation should be conducted into school buses. Urgent legislation is required to stop overcrowding. Every child on a school bus should have a seat. It is ridiculous that three children may have to sit on a seat designed for two, and standing on buses should stop. Perhaps something should also be done about the speed limit for school buses.
Tomorrow, the owners of the lorry which caused the devastation in the Sowerby Bridge accident—Hewston Transport Ltd of Skipton—face charges at Calderdale magistrates court in relation to defective brakes. The Crown Prosecution Service has apparently decided, for whatever reason, not to prosecute. Nevertheless, the managing directors of Hewston Transport Ltd will be in the dock tomorrow and no doubt justice will take its course. In


those circumstances, it would be improper for me to comment further, save to say that nothing will bring back the victims of that dreadful tragedy. In their memory, however, we should at least try as legislators to do something to help prevent such dreadful accidents from happening in the future.
I remind the Minister that the deputy coroner, Mark Hinchliffe, said when giving his verdict at the inquest:
It all amounts to involuntary but nevertheless unlawful killing and that is my judgment in each of these cases. If the brakes had been properly inspected and checked in the days leading up to this tragedy, these defects would have been obvious.
He could have added that the lives of the lorry driver, Mr. Derek Waterworth, Mr. Peter Scott, Mrs. Ann Crossley and her daughter Karen, Mrs. Beryl Rose and Mrs. Angela Rooke could have been saved. Will the Minister tell us how he thinks that removing the obligation to relicense every vehicle every five years will help to prevent such accidents?

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I strongly urge the Government to accept the amendments. Throughout our debates in Committee we kept coming back to the central dilemma posed by the Bill: in what circumstances does the lifting of a burden on business mean placing a burden on the public? That is the core of the Bill. Had the Government accepted our core amendments in Committee—to the effect that the Bill was inappropriate where public safety was concerned—we should not be debating amendment No. 23 today because anything to do with fire, road or environmental safety would have been removed from the Bill and the public would have been protected.
Acting in the public interest is always a restraint on individuals and businesses. For example, we do not drop litter because it is unpleasant for others. It is our responsibility, in the various facets of our work in the House, to set out what the public interest means.
The Prime Minister said that the Bill was necessary. Apparently, Parliament has gone too far in stressing public interest, the standards demanded are too high and, too often, business finds compliance too costly or too much of a burden. In Committee and on Report we have tried and are trying to stop the drive towards anarchy and to set limits in relation to what we believe that the public demand.
Last week, we tried to protect fire safety provisions and today we are arguing for road safety to be protected through the vehicle licensing system. I hope that our amendments will meet with a sympathetic hearing. Our plea is simple: if, in any five-year period, the safety of an operator's vehicles—whether goods vehicles or public service vehicles—is called into question, the operator's licence should be reviewed automatically and carefully. That would cover the whole gamut of the many unsafe road practices that we discussed in Committee.
Excessive driving hours, for example, would be covered. At present, drivers can drive for up to 16 hours a day, or 10 hours in urban areas. Personally, I feel that I need a break from driving after two hours and I believe that that is the responsible way to drive. It is unacceptable not to keep the operators of goods and public service vehicles under strict and careful review to ensure that drivers' hours are strictly limited and not exceeded in any circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) made an eloquent speech, and I need not repeat what she said. She stressed that the condition of vehicles could be a major potential cause of crashes if vehicles were not kept up to scratch. Again, the only way to ensure sufficient standards is through careful review, careful enforcement and an insistence that standards are maintained. In this context, my hon. Friend spoke eloquently of the tragic accident at Sowerby Bridge in her constituency.
I shall concentrate on public service vehicle issues, which are covered from clause 40 onwards, especially school buses and seat belts in minibuses. The recent appalling accident in north Yorkshire, which resulted in the deaths of the young cub scouts and their leader, raises with great acuteness yet again the issue of children's safety in minibuses. I accept that travel in buses, minibuses and coaches is probably safer than travel in private vehicles, but that does not reduce the urgency of our insistence in the House today that we should ensure by law that seat belts are fitted in minibuses and that such legislation is enforced. I hope that everyone supports that.
If we agree today that seat belts should be fitted—I hope that speakers on both sides will insist on that—how will such a law be enforced satisfactorily when, as a result of the Bill, the enforcement system is being weakened at every turn? We need stronger methods of enforcing important aspects of vehicle and road safety which we believe are in the public interest. We should not weaken the enforcement system by saying that there is no need for a five-year review and no need to increase staff numbers at vehicle licensing offices. We must ensure that regulations are enforced adequately.
Responsibility for enforcement will fall on the vehicle licensing authority if the Bill is enacted. Our worry, which is shared by members of the Civil and Public Services Association, is that if continuous licensing is introduced it will not be possible, with the current structure of the licensing system, adequately to enforce crucial standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) also mentioned the strong representations from the Police Federation, which has said categorically that if continuous licensing is introduced it will not be possible to regulate and adequately to enforce necessary safety standards. Both the key bodies involved in enforcement are saying that we should be careful because safety standards will not be enforceable.
With regard to school buses, there has been a fairly scandalous situation in my constituency with regard to safety. In the large rural area covered by my constituency, a great percentage of children have to travel to school by bus. There have been stories of them being crowded on to buses like cattle and of many having nowhere to sit. Children have frequently been left at bus stops when buses do not turn up on time and drivers do not know the routes around the rural areas. Vehicles are out of date and some do not run on time. All those problems have led to a major campaign in Sheffield to get the law changed to make it unacceptable for three children, especially children of secondary age, to have to share a seat that is made for two. It is quite outrageous that that should happen. The campaign is also aimed—very sensibly—at ensuring that the upgrading of safety standards on school buses is carried out wherever authorities are concerned about it.
In Sheffield, the council has set down a code of practice with which it believes that all bus operators in the area should comply and the campaign is trying to ensure that


that is taken seriously. However, it is not possible to get every private bus company to take the council's code of practice seriously in the light of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. In effect, the Government are telling private bus operators not to worry and to take no notice of busybodies like the council who are interested only in the school kids and do not understand companies' business needs. That is the whole thrust of the Bill and in that climate it is not possible even to get a meeting with the Minister about the code of practice in Sheffield, let alone to get the bus operators to take it seriously.
The current climate of deregulation in the bus and coach industry has led to large numbers of new operators. In 1985-86, 91 per cent. of all public service vehicles were in the public sector and 9 per cent. were in the private sector. In 1992–93, 29 per cent. were in the public sector and 71 per cent. were in the private sector. Conservative Members will say that that is excellent, that their policies are working and how wonderful it is that they have achieved a major shift from public sector transport to private sector transport. However, Labour Members are saying that it is totally irresponsible to consider that shift from public service to private service without having tight safety regulations and enforcement systems in place to ensure that the move is not accompanied by a move away from standards of public safety. All the evidence shows that, since bus deregulation, the standards of vehicles have fallen, standards of safety on school buses have fallen and standards in the movement of people around cities and rural areas on buses have also gone down.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: And the bus fleet is older.

Mrs. Jackson: As my hon. Friend points out, the bus fleet is older as well.
To introduce continuous licensing and take away the need for operators to renew their licence every five years, with the accompanying relaxation of operators' safety regulations that will ensue, is irresponsible. It is the wrong time and the wrong place for such a move, which may immensely damage safety standards in the future. As in so many other areas of public responsibility, the so-called watchdog—in this case, the licensing authority—becomes old, under-nourished and toothless until one might just as well call it not a dog, but a mouse. I urge the House to support the amendments.

Mr. Andrew Miller: First, let me deal with the some of the important points made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), whose knowledge of road traffic matters is well known throughout the House and outside it and whose expertise I acknowledge. In the context of the amendments, however, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to leap to the conclusion that, just because the general trend is towards deregulation —the right direction, as he perceives it—deregulation is needed in the bus and coach industry.
4.30 pm
There is clearly a positive approach to road safety, and there are positive developments in driver education and in the design and build of all vehicles. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the number of accidents per road mile is correct—I do not claim to have the hon.

Gentleman's detailed expertise in this matter—but feel that there is a great danger in leaping to the conclusion that he has reached on the basis of that trend alone.
I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to take up the hon. Gentleman's point about language. For example, what are called road traffic accidents are usually not road traffic accidents. I have in mind some of the appalling cases with which we have to deal in our constituencies—in particular, the case of Mrs. Burgess, who had to initiate a private prosecution following the death of her husband, who was hit by a drunken driver. It is outrageous that such an incident should be called a road traffic accident; it was not. In the end, the courts agreed with Mrs. Burgess. Bearing in mind the case of ex parte Chaudhry, hon. Members on both sides of the House should consider carefully the law governing prosecutions that are related to death by driving. There are clearly loopholes in the system and the House should examine them.
To take up another of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, I believe that, given the value of the work undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, it would be an enormous mistake to risk changing its management through privatisation. There are structural reasons why it should remain linked directly to the Government of the day. There are also organisational reasons that reflect the work that is being undertaken by those who are employed there: if there is uncertainty, that work will suffer.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The critical point is that civil servants in the Department of Transport will tend to change their jobs every two, four or six years. There must be continuity of knowledge so that it is understood what questions should be asked and what potential answers need to be tested. Those are critical factors given the nature of the research that is undertaken. I do not doubt that competition in research is worth while. I do not doubt either the motives of those in the Department of Transport who advise Ministers. But I do doubt whether they can direct the research in the way that the laboratory and some universities have managed to achieve. The laboratory has achieved that direction because of its long-term expertise; it, and some universities, have driven forward our knowledge, which we can then apply.

Mr. Miller: On occasions there is 100 per cent. agreement across the Floor of the House. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The same argument applies to several other Government research laboratories. It would be inappropriate, of course, to follow that road.
The debate is about the signals that we send to the public, who are anxious that we act to mitigate the risks that they face day by day, especially given the incident that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). That example and many others illustrate the need for the House to examine carefully the way in which the various mechanisms work. Removing the regular relicensing process, an MOT-style process in respect of which operators face positive challenges, and implementing a more liberal and continuous process will not send the right signals to the public.
The Minister failed to demonstrate in Committee that a continuous system had any worthwhile precedents in other areas of road traffic legislation. The analogy of the MOT-style process is important. Can we imagine the Minister taking the next logical step and saying that, in


future, MOTs will be issued on a continuous licensing basis? That may be taking the Minister's argument to extremes, but it is worth considering the analogy. I urge the House, on the basis of the consensus on some aspects of road traffic legislation, to consider most carefully the points that were made in Committee and to support the amendment.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): It is one of the more tedious functions of someone who stands at this post to remind the House what the amendments are actually about. I do not suppose that I should delay the House for more than about 45 seconds discussing them as none of the Opposition speeches went anywhere near the amendments as they are drafted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That might be the Minister's judgment, but I regard the amendments as entirely in order and I would be surprised if the Minister did not wish to respond to them.

Mr. Norris: As I heard myself making those remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I realised what you would say to me —and you did, indeed, say it. I consider myself duly admonished. Of course every word was in order. It was merely my lack of intellectual capacity that prevented me from making the connection as subtly as you did; I congratulate you on that.
To satisfy my own feeble intelligence, perhaps I should make it clear that the amendments would, in my view, add a form of words to the Bill that is already taken care of in the Bill as it stands. If an undertaking is required by the licensing authority in relation to an operator, a failure to adhere to that undertaking will cause the licensing authority to take disciplinary action. That is exactly as I am sure the House would expect. As regards the substance of the amendment, I have no doubt that the House should reject it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) intended the amendment to be a probing amendment.
On the more general issues, may I in a sense take up where the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) left off? She said—and she was absolutely right —that the nub of the debate was the nexus between safety and regulation. Throughout the passage of the Bill, it seems that the Opposition have quite deliberately—and I give them credit for that—confused the issues of safety and regulation, by assuming, for example, that deregulating automatically compromises safety.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to the Bill as introducing a "more liberal" regime. However, that is not what the Bill does. The Bill does not by one iota affect the power of a licensing authority, if it encounters conduct—for example, by a heavy goods vehicle operator—which is inconsistent with the proper standards required of that operator, to take that operator's vehicle off the road straight away, bring legal action against that operator, including criminal charges if necessary, and cause that offence to cease.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) spoke about tragic events in her constituency, including the accident at Sowerby Bridge. I have every sympathy with those of her constituents who were affected by that accident and those who were tragically involved in it and, indeed, with those who were involved in the other incidents that she mentioned. I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady's desire to use the opportunity that she had

today to voice her worries about a variety of issues. However, she must understand, because it is fundamental to the Bill, that nothing in the proposals reduces, dilutes or makes more liberal in any respect the powers of the licensing authority to come down as hard as necessary on operators who do not maintain their vehicles to a proper standard or who in any other way fail to operate in accordance with their legal obligation.

Mrs. Mahon: rose—

Mr. Norris: Let me make one point clear before I give way to the hon. Lady. She and other Opposition Members drew the analogy between continuous licensing of operators and operators' premises and the idea of an MOT test that lasted indefinitely. That latter proposition is ludicrous: she knows it; the House knows it; and I do not think that it need detain us for a second. It is not what is proposed in the Bill.
The Bill says, straightforwardly, that operators shall comply with all the undertakings that the licensing authority requires them to give; and that, having done so, if they are regarded as fit and proper—if they show all the appropriate qualifications that are required of operators —they shall be issued with a licence. When they do that, they will join the ranks of the holders of licences. About 14,000 licences were given or renewed in 1993. Of that number, about 500 applications were deemed worthy of further investigation by the licensing authority and a very small number—speaking from memory, about 225—were refused by the licensing authority. The purpose of the Bill is simply to allow—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was not a member of the Committee, but I have an historic interest in the sector. Does what the Minister is saying mean that Ministers expect a similar number of applications to be made successfully, perhaps by third parties, that lead to the termination of licences? The Minister says that another process will operate. Do I presume that the effect of that process will be precisely the same—apart from anything else that is going on in the marketplace?

Mr. Norris: Yes. In so far as I understand the hon. Gentleman's question, I can assure him that we expect there to be as many objections from members of the public to the grant of licences and as many concerns about environmental aspects of operators' centres as there are at present, and just as much activity to control poorly maintained vehicles. The one change that we are introducing is the removal of the necessity to go through a completely meaningless form of paperwork in respect of 95 per cent. of applications for renewed licences. That is the key.

Mrs. Mahon: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Norris: I give way to the hon. Member for Halifax.

Mrs. Mahon: I thank the Minister for his words about the victims at Sowerby Bridge, but can he tell us why he ignores the advice of the Police Federation, which is alarmed at the prospect of licences for life? It has said:
Any licence relating to an operator's fleet size, business premises and hours of business granted in perpetuity could severely affect the safety of members of the public and have a detrimental effect on environmental factors.
Why does the Minister ignore such expert advice?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady should have been in our Committee. On reconsideration, it is better that she was not in the Committee—she knows what Bill Committees are like. None the less, had she read Hansard, she would know that we made it clear in Committee that the Police Federation is not usually consulted on matters of policy. On policy matters, the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland speaks for the police service. What the Police Federation said was true, but its statement would be relevant to the Bill only if the situation that it described was envisaged in the legislation —and it was not.
I am sure that, aside from the good sense made in a great many of the observations—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Norris: May I finish this argument? Notwithstanding the good sense of a number of hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, about matters which were not directly related to operator licences— anxieties about seat belts in coaches or minibuses and so on —which are for another time, the amendments should be rejected. I am sure that the principle of continuous licensing in no sense compromises the safety of passengers. I give way for the last time because we are reaching the end of our time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept the proposition that if an operator knows that he has to reapply for a licence, he is more likely to take action to clear up any problems for fear that he may not otherwise receive that licence, whereas under the system that the Minister is introducing that fear will be removed?

Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that that is not the case. We discussed those matters on Second Reading and in Committee. I can assure him that that fear is unfounded.

Mr. Fatchett: I congratulate my hon. Friends on the way in which they mentioned a number of important issues in the debate. On some of the issues which the Minister described as not directly related to the amendment but which are none the less in order, I hope that the Minister listened to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), especially in relation to the compulsory wearing of seat belts in minibuses.
The key difference between the two sides on this issue relates to the 5 per cent. of operators about whom the Minister spoke in terms of continuous licensing. My hon. Friends and I still feel that making life difficult for the 5 per cent. is worth while in safety terms. The 95 per cent. of operators who get through the system will share that view. They will recognise that there is always a danger that the 5 per cent.—often the cowboys in the industry—will be able to get away with a softer touch in future. That is unacceptable in terms of safety standards.
My hon. Friends also hold the view—as do I—that the existing system of continuous licensing gives a clear indication to the industry that the Government wish to enforce a set of standards. The dropping of the continuous

licensing system gives another indication to those cowboys in the industry that it might now be possible to have a more relaxed or liberal view of safety standards.
That is why, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, we have objected to the provision to withdraw the continuous licensing proposals. We feel that the current regime makes sense and we want it to continue. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendments.
The Government have not answered all our worries about safety. As the hon. Member for Eltham was almost saying, the industry needs tight regulation to ensure that safety standards are fully maintained. The signals made by the Government will not be acceptable to the public. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby and vote for amendment No. 21.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 250.

Division No. 251]
[4.48 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foulkes, George


Allen, Graham
Gapes, Mike


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Garrett, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
George, Bruce


Armstrong, Hilary
Gerrard, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Austin-Walker, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Harry
Godsiff, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bayley, Hugh
Gordon, Mildred


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Berry, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Gunnell, John


Boyes, Roland
Hall, Mike


Bradley, Keith
Hardy, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harvey, Nick


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Burden, Richard
Heppell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cann, Jamie
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coffey, Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dafis, Cynog
Jowell, Tessa


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Keen, Alan


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Loyden, Eddie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lynne, Ms Liz


Enright, Derek
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McCartney, Ian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McFall, John


Fatchett, Derek
McKelvey, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McLeish, Henry






Maclennan, Robert
Reid, Dr John


McMaster, Gordon
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


MacShane, Denis
Rogers, Allan


Madden, Max
Rooker, Jeff


Mahon, Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mandelson, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Alun
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Short, Clare


Milburn, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Olner, William
Wareing, Robert N


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Patchett, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn



Purchase, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Radice, Giles
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Randall, Stuart





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Chapman, Sydney


Aitken, Jonathan
Clappison, James


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Body, Sir Richard
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Booth, Hartley
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, Andrew
Duncan, Alan


Bowis, John
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dunn, Bob


Brandreth, Gyles
Elletson, Harold


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evennett, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Cash, William
French, Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fry, Sir Peter





Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gallie, Phil
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gardiner, Sir George
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Garnier, Edward
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorst, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Ottaway, Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Page, Richard


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Patnick, Irvine


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hannam, Sir John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hargreaves, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Harris, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Haselhurst, Alan
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Rathbone, Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Richards, Rod


Hayes, Jerry
Riddick, Graham


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Hendry, Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hicks, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Horam, John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sackville, Tom


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger


Hunter, Andrew
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jack, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Speed, Sir Keith


Jessel, Toby
Spencer, Sir Derek


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Spring, Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sproat, Iain


Key, Robert
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knapman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stephen, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stewart, Allan


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Streeter, Gary


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sumberg, David


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sweeney, Walter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sykes, John


Legg, Barry
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lightbown, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thomason, Roy


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Luff, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, David
Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trimble, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Malone, Gerald
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mans, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waller, Gary


Mates, Michael
Ward, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Merchant, Piers
Waterson, Nigel


Mills, Iain
Watts, John






Wells, Bowen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 28, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) In considering whether subsection (3)(c) or (d) of this section will apply in relation to a licence, the licensing authority may take into account (if such be the case) that any proposed operating centre of the applicant would be used—

(a) as an operating centre of the holders of other operators' licences as well as of the applicant; or
(b) by the applicant or by other persons for purposes other than keeping vehicles used under the licence.'.

No. 29, in page 29, line 13, leave out from 'application' to
'already' and insert 'was made, that place was'.

No. 30, in page 29, line 15, after 'licence' insert
' and had been so specified for a prescribed period'.

No. 31, in page 29, leave out line 22 and insert—
'(5A) Subsection (5) of this section does not apply in relation to any place that, at the time the application is determined by the licensing authority, is specified in an operator's licence as mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, and in that paragraph-'.

No. 32, in page 29, line 25, leave out from beginning to
'specified' in line 26 and insert—
`(b) references to a place having been specified in an operator's licence do not include a place having been'. —[Mr. Norris.]

Clause 37

VARIATION OF LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 35, line 34, leave out from 'application' to
'already' in line 35 and insert 'was made, the place in question was'.

No. 34, in page 35, line 37, after 'licence' insert
' and had been so specified for a prescribed period'.

No. 35, in page 35, leave out line 46 and insert—
'(8) Subsection (7) of this section does not apply in relation to any place that, at the time the application is determined by the licensing authority, is specified in an operator's licence as mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, and in that paragraph-'.

No. 36, in page 36, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
`(b) references to a place having been specified in an operator's licence do not include a place having been'. — [Mr. Norris.]

Schedule 10

SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED IN THE TRANSPORT ACT 1968 AFTER SCHEDULE 8.

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 91, line 22, at end insert
'so far as relating to the suitability of any place specified in the licence for use as an operating centre of the licence-holder;'.— [Mr. Norris.]

Clause 45

OPERATORS' LICENCES NOT TO BE TRANSFERABLE ETC.

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 44, line 15, after 'purposes' insert for such period'.—[Mr. Norris.]

Clause 46

FEES

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 45, line 33, at end insert—
'( ) Where such a direction is given in respect of an operator's licence—

(a) any condition attached to the licence under section 66 of this Act shall be treated as having been of no effect during the period beginning with the time the licence terminated by virtue of subsection (3) or (4) of this section and ending with the time the direction comes into force; and
(b) subject to paragraph (a) of this subsection, the licensing authority may vary any such condition as it applies in relation to events occurring before the direction comes into force.'.—[Mr. Norris.]

Schedule 11

GOODS VEHICLE OPERATOR LICENSING: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 95, leave out lines 24 and 25.—[Mr. Norris.]

Clause 56

FEES

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 50, line 33, at end insert—
'(2F) Where the traffic commissioner has given a direction under subsection (2E) above in respect of a PSV operator's licence in a case where subsection (2A) or (2C) above has applied, it shall not for the purposes of section 20(1) or (2) of this Act be regarded as having been practicable for the licence-holder to—

(a) report any matter to the Secretary of State; or
(b) give him notice of any alteration,

during the period beginning with the time mentioned in subsection (2A) or (2C) and ending when the direction came into force.'.—[Mr. Norris.]

New clause 4

BURDENS IMPOSED BY PUBLIC BODIES

'.—(1) If, with respect to any action taken by a public body which imposes a burden on any person, a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that—

(a) the effect of such action is such as to impose, or authorise, or require the imposition of a burden affecting that person in the carrying on of any trade, business, profession or otherwise; and
(b) the burden so imposed is disproportionate to the end or purpose which is sought to be achieved; and
(c) it would be possible without removing any necessary protection to remove or reduce the burden or, as the case may be, the authorisation or requirement by virtue of which the burden may be imposed,

he may by order require the body to act to remove, or as the case may be, reduce the burden.

(2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) above to reducing the authorisation or requirement by virtue of which a burden may be imposed includes a reference to shortening any period of time within which the burden may be so imposed.

(3) An order under subsection (1)—

(a) shall, if it requires the reduction of a burden, specify the manner and extent thereof,
(b) may include such incidental, consequential and transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Minister to be appropriate,
(c) may make different provisions for different cases or descriptions of case, including different provisions for different areas,
(d) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(e) shall be laid before Parliament after it is made.

(4) A public body in respect of the action of which an order has been made shall comply with the terms thereof within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which it was made.

(5) It shall be a defence in any proceedings in any court or before any tribunal that a person has failed to comply with any burden to which subsection (1) above applies to prove that—

(a) the failure to comply occurred or first occurred after the expiry of the period set out in subsection (4) above, and
(b) if the burden had been removed or reduced in accordance with the requirement of the Minister under subsection (1) above there would have been no failure to comply.

(6) In this section—
Minister of the Crown" and "burden" shall have the same meaning as in Chapter I of Part I and "Minister" shall be construed accordingly; and
public body" means a body established by or under any enactment, to which the Minister has power to give directions regarding the discharge of its responsibilities, to the controlling organ of which the Minister makes nominations, or the income of which includes money provided by Parliament, but excludes any local authority, fire authority, police authority or civil defence authority.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient also to take new clause 14—Burdens imposed by public bodies (No. 2)—
'.—(1) Where a person carrying on a trade or business—

(a) is aggrieved by any action lawfully taken on proposed to be taken by a public body ("the action") which imposes, or may reasonably be expected to impose, a burden on the trade or business, and
(b) is of the opinion that any burden so imposed is greater than is reasonably necessary to achieve the intended purpose of the action,

he may apply to a magistrates' court for a declaration under subsection (5) below.
(2) An application under subsection (1) above shall be made—

(a) by the person carrying on the trade or business or any other person duly authorised by him in that respect,
(b) in the prescribed form and manner, and
(c) within a prescribed period beginning with the date on which the person aggrieved became aware of the action or was deemed under any statutory provision to have been notified of it.

(3) The Secretary of State shall prescribe how any date required for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above is to be determined, and different bases of determination may be prescribed for different circumstances.
(4) A magistrates' court shall consider an application for a declaration under subsection (1) above within the period of seven days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays) beginning with the date on which it is made.
(5) A magistrates' court considering an application under subsection (1) above shall—

(a) if it is satisfied that the action imposes a burden on the trade or business greater than is reasonably necessary to achieve the intended purpose of the action, make the declaration as sought with such variation, and on such conditions as the court shall think proper in all the circumstances, and
(b) if it is not so satisfied, refuse to make the declaration.

(6) In reaching a decision on whether to make a declaration under subsection (5) above the court shall, without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (a) of that subsection, have particular regard to—

(a) whether other action which imposes a lesser burden on the trade or business might reasonably be expected to achieve the intended purpose of the action complained of,
(b) the extent of any risk to life, health or property of making, or refusing to make, such a declaration,
(c) the extent to which the granting of a declaration may incidentally cause a burden to be imposed on any other person carrying on a trade or business, or cause an existing burden on any such person to be increased, and

(d) the likely effect on the commercial prospects of the trade or business of refusing to make a declaration.

(7) The effect of making a declaration under subsection (5) above shall be that—

(a) if the action has taken effect, that effect shall be suspended forthwith, but without prejudice to anything done before it was suspended or in consequence of anything so done, and
(b) if the action has not taken effect, it shall not take effect other than in accordance with subsection (10) below.

(8) A declaration under subsection (5) above shall cease to have effect—

(a) at the end of a prescribed period beginning with the date on which it is made, or
(b) at the end of any longer period provided for in any statutory provision for an appeal against the action, unless subsection (9) below applies.

(9)(a) If—

(i) within the period provided for in any statutory provision for an appeal against the action, such an appeal is properly made in accordance with a statutory provision, or
(ii) an application for judicial review of the action is properly made,

subsection (8) shall not apply and a declaration under subsection (5) above shall cease to have effect when the appeal or, as the case may be, the application is finally determined or is withdrawn or abandoned, whichever first occurs, unless both an appeal and an application have been made.
(b) The Secretary of State shall prescribe when and in what circumstances a declaration under subsection (5) above shall cease to have effect if both an appeal as referred to in sub-paragraph (a)(i) above and an application for judicial review as referred to in sub-paragraph (a)(ii) above are properly made.
(10) The effect of a declaration under subsection (5) above ceasing to have effect shall be—

(a) if the declaration ceases to have effect in accordance with the provisions of subsection (8) above, the action shall (or as the case may be, shall again) come into effect; and
(b) if the declaration ceases to have effect in accordance with the provisions of subsection (9) above, the action shall (or as the case may be shall again) come into effect, if and so far as is consistent with the determination (if any) of the appeal or the judgement (if any) of the court on the application for judicial review of the action.

(11) The Secretary of State shall, by order made by statutory instrument, prescribe—

(a) anything which under this section is to be prescribed,
(b) the procedure to be followed by magistrates' courts on applications for declarations under this section, and
(c) any incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions which are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, necessary to give effect to the provisions of this section.

(12) In this section—
action" means any order, decision, instruction, or requirement (however described)—

(a) with which there is a statutory requirement to comply, or
(b) in respect of which it is an offence under any statutory provision to fail to comply;

other action" includes delaying the taking of the action; "public body" does not include any court or tribunal constituted under any statutory provision but, subject to that, means a body established by or under any enactment to which the Minister has power to give directions regarding the discharge of its responsibilities, to the controlling organ of which the Minister makes nominations, or the income of which includes money provided by Parliament.
statutory provision" means any provision in any Act of Parliament or any statutory instrument and "statutory requirement" shall be construed accordingly.'.

Mr. Meacher: The purpose of the new clause is to provide a procedure for removing the burdens imposed by the Government's huge proliferation of quangos. It turns out that the new clause is timely, because yesterday the


most exhaustive and authoritative survey of quangos was published by an independent organisation called Democratic Audit of the UK. It identified no fewer than 5,500 executive quangos, which is the major part of its total quango count of more than 6,700 appointed bodies.
It shows that public spending on executive quangos—I shall concentrate on those today—has increased by 24 per cent. in real terms since 1979 when Mrs. Thatcher came to power pledging to reduce both their number and their cost. Altogether, it found that quangos now control nearly £50 billion of all public expenditure and yet they are totally unaccountable to the taxpayers who provide the money.
All of that spending is under the control of an appointed "New Magistracy"—the name given to the business-dominated elite estimated by the report to number about 73,000 quangocrats put there by ministerial appointment. That is nearly three times the total number of all elected councillors, which is about 25,000. That, I submit, is the democrat deficit at the heart of Britain today.
Those executive quangos have usurped major local authority powers for the provision of key local services such as housing, schools, further education, employment training and urban development, and yet their accountability is minimal.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Is he saying that he does not like quangos or that there are too many people in the public sector? Would he, in effect, put those people into Government or would he cut the numbers, because that is the problem?

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for anticipating my speech. I am in favour of both of those. I am in favour of a substantial reduction in the number of quangos and—this is the real point to which I was just coming—there is the question of accountability. Only about 14 per cent. of the quangos are subject to investigation by any ombudsman. Only one third are subject to public audit. Only 2 per cent. observe the Government's new open government code of practice. Less than half publish annual reports. Only 7 per cent. are obliged to hold at least one public meeting annually. Only one third make their minutes available, none let people see their policy documents and less than half keep a public register of interests.
All of that is a contrast to elected local authorities. Given that huge gap in proper public scrutiny, it is hardly surprising that the process is generating a steady stream of financial scandals, a waste of public resources, burdens on public life and political nepotism. That is why the Public Accounts Committee found in its recent report that standards of conduct in public business were at their lowest ebb since the Northcote-Trevelyan reform of the 1850s buried the old patronage state. However, the Government are fast creating a new patronage state that is as in need of democratic attention as Old Sarum in the 18th century.
The burdens imposed by the partisan expansion of the quango state are huge and growing. For example—I could give many examples—the Public Accounts Committee discovered that the Welsh Development Agency squandered £2 million of public money with unauthorised golden handshakes, paid the private motoring bills of

senior staff and, through its poor personnel management, hired a man with convictions for fraud as its marketing director.
The Public Accounts Committee also found that West Midlands regional health authority agreed that the director of regionally managed services should be sacked, but in fact he was made redundant and got a lump sum of £81,000 and a pension. The regional health authority was found to have wasted £10 million in huge pay-outs to failed business consultants and officials at the expense of patient care. All that information is in the PAC report. The authority's chairman, Sir James Ackers, who resigned, was nevertheless given a £10,000 golden handshake by the Secretary of State for Health.
Wessex regional health authority squandered £20 million on an information system and there were serious conflicts of interest between it and the consultants who had recommended the system. The training and enterprise councils' Field system computer cost £48 million, but it was not assessed properly and proved to be a waste of money. The TECs spent a further £11 million on consultants hired in what the report describes as a haphazard manner.
Many of those examples are known to the House and new ones occur almost daily. I shall cite one or two more. The Midlands development corporation, which is packed full of estate agents and developers, was criticised last month for scheduling land owned by friends for development. The £30,000-a-year chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales, Mr. Glyn Davies, was forced to stand down a week ago when the PAC found that 20 per cent. of tenants were granted homes according to rules that were not made public, that homes had secretly been allocated to the board's housing officer and his ex-wife and that irregular payments had been made to directors under a car leasing scheme.
In addition, there is an almost daily stream of appointments scandals. Last week, two former Tory Members of Parliament were appointed to the Government's deregulation panel, even though the Bill is still before the House. A little before that, a Tory businessman was appointed to run the Schools Funding Agency—and so on and so forth.
There is widespread revulsion at the explosion of croneyism and patronage. There is also a widespread feeling that quangos, having initially been sold as a spur to efficiency and a check on public bureaucracy, are layers of unwanted bureaucracy themselves in many cases. Developers now want to be close to the community and do not want a quango in the way. I am aware of one example in the east Thames corridor—the North Kent Forum now brings together the Department of the Environment, local councils and the Groundwork Trust with industry representatives. Such forums and partnerships are springing up in many places. They are local and they are funded by a balance between all the participants.
In contrast, quangos are another bureaucratic structure, which must be serviced and often costs too much, even in the absence of fraud and corruption. That is why we tabled the new clause, as a short-term measure to enable such burdens to be removed more readily. I would be the first to accept that it is a very limited measure. Our long-term strategy goes a great deal further. As they are constituted, quangos are virtually impervious to democratic influence. By nature, they are secretive and they are packed with Tory nomenclatures, like a one-party state.
5.15 pm
Where quangos have usurped powers that should be exercised only by elected bodies, we shall abolish them and restore their functions to elected regional or unitary authorities. In all other cases, if they are retained, we shall subject them to supervision by the ombudsman and to the same surcharge disciplines as local authorities. We shall provide them with a more balanced membership and require an open-government culture and freedom of information in all their dealings.
In the short term, and in the context of the Bill, our new clause would minimise the more extreme and flagrant abuses, so I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Sykes: I shall speak to new clause 14, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). Its object is to provide a speedy and effective means of challenging orders and decisions made by public officials, which are perceived to be disproportionate or unreasonable, could harm business and are not justified by any imminent danger to life or health.
The clause is the device that would continue and amplify deregulation. It is the device that would firmly establish the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, so that it rests on two pillars of strength. The first is the parliamentary pillar by which we in Westminster dispose of overburdensome regulations—the so-called Henry VIII clause. The second pillar is my new clause, whereby we in Westminster would give back a little power—a little subsidiarity perhaps—to the ordinary man in the street by allowing him to appeal to a magistrate to overturn an unfair order.
I call this clause or second pillar the Henry VII clause —he was the father of Henry VIII and the king who established the widespread use of administrative magistrates as a means of achieving justice and peace throughout his realm. Such a mechanism would be entirely in keeping with the Department of Trade and Industry report commissioned by the President of the Board of Trade and sent to the Prime Minister last year. The report stated:
There needs to be an ombudsman who could act as a point of contact for traders and investigate cases of over-zealous enforcement.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I read the new clause carefully and I have a question for the hon. Gentleman. If a local authority in his constituency decided that hotels used for bed-and-breakfast clients had to comply with stricter fire and safety regulations, and one of the owners said, "I am sorry but that will restrict my business, it is far too expensive for me to implement, I shall appeal to the Government because it is a burden," which side would the hon. Gentleman be on?

Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking me that question. One can always rely on her to open her mouth wide enough to put both feet in it. She was not present for the debate that we had on this subject in Standing Committee F on Thursday 28 April—she was in South Africa—but before that she had spent months and months complaining about over-zealous regulation. I beg her to listen to this debate with her ears, not with her mouth. I said right at the beginning that we are concerned here with over-zealous enforcement of regulations only.

Mrs. Jackson: rose—

Mr. Sykes: I may give way to the hon. Lady later, but I should like to make a little progress first. 
Over-zealous enforcement of regulations is all I ask the House to concern itself with this afternoon. Let us consider the almost unlimited powers enjoyed by public officials, some of them fresh out of college. There are vast regiments of them. They have a right of entry to our premises and each of them is armed to the teeth with 1,000 different regulations, each regulation bristling with 1,000 dire and prohibitive consequences of the non-compliance with the will of the enforcer.
Consider the case of the Regal rest home in North Marine road, Scarborough. On 3 February this year, Ian Dewar, the proprietor, received a letter from S. Peacock, principal officer of the social services registration and inspection unit. Writing on behalf of North Yorkshire county council, S. Peacock called for two full-time members of staff to be present during the day, and one at night, together with a competent person to be on call in the building. The letter concluded ominously:
All homes not meeting the staffing standards will be required to do so".
Mr. Dewar sent me a letter as follows:
As owners of this care home, we are properly registered in accordance with current social services guidelines…Although we are registered for eight residents, we only have six because social services disapprove of double rooms. Now we are told by social services that we must have two staff on 24 hours a day, including waking night staff.
Under current social services policy, residents who become physically dependent are moved into nursing homes or hospitals. Therefore, this care home cannot have physically dependent residents. We have six residents who are not physically dependent and I seriously question this imposition. To implement these staffing levels would inflict a wages bill that would be financially impossible for us to meet. It would bankrupt us within six months. We would lose everything we own in the process. We would end up homeless and left with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt that we would not be able to pay back in our lifetime … In addition, there would be no home for our residents to go to.
Mr. Dewar says that his staff would be made redundant because the business would be unsaleable and concludes:
As one of the many small homes who care for the elderly of this county, I am asking for your help in this matter.
Help was at hand, in the shape of the hon. Member for Scarborough. North Yorkshire county council has now promised to reconsider the matter in the light of my representations. It should not, however, be for the Member of Parliament to deal with such things.
It was therefore with some astonishment that I began to read Labour's new clause 4, entitled "Burdens imposed on public bodies". At first, I thought that the road to Damascus had been widened; redemption was at hand— the little Johnny-come-latelys had finally come out of the closet. Could it be that Labour had tabled a new clause that would actually help the Regal rest home in my constituency—a capitalist institution? I studied the names on the amendment paper to see whether I could identify a leadership challenge. Certainly, there were some guns there—not howitzer league, but big guns nevertheless. They were the same guns, coincidentally, as sat in Room 9 every Tuesday and Thursday in our Standing Committee.
Those big guns were flanked by the pea-shooters among their Back Benchers. Week in, week out they shot off whatever meagre ammunition they had received from Walworth road—they were against this, they were against that, they were against the other. They agreed with us on


one thing—they were against over-zealous regulators, and that was progress indeed. So Conservatives looked forward to hearing how Labour would deal with them.
We waited and waited, and then we waited some more. When we had become bored with waiting, we felt that the Opposition must be embarrassed. So we thought of putting a suggestion box in the Committee Corridor. Finally, however, the grim truth emerged. Among Opposition Members, cluelessness had scaled new heights. There was not an idea between them—until, that is, I read the first few lines of new clause 4, which establishes an appeal procedure. Wonderful, I thought, although not perfect. Labour's clause allows an appeal only to a Minister of the Crown. I could not quite see D.P.Barry and Company, tripe manufacturers, ringing up the Secretary of State just because some nosey environmental health officer would not allow the company to boil pigs' trotters in a particular pan.
I want an appeal procedure via the magistrates courts because they are more user-friendly, more widely understood and not even slightly intimidating. In the name of consensus and of progress, however, I did not want to quarrel with the big guns who tabled the new clause—until I reached subsection (6) where, to my despair, I found that Labour's big guns had spiked their own new clause. How? The subsection provides that anything done by a local authority is excluded from the appeals process.
Why? Was this because the Opposition fondly imagined that their municipal cousins in Labour-controlled authorities were genetically incapable of taking unreasonable decisions? Perhaps they have never heard of Manchester, which owes nearly as much as does El Salvador. Perhaps they prefer to overlook Birmingham which, in 10 years, has accumulated a debt three times the size of that of Albania, and which sent two officers to Belgium to buy six fig trees at a cost of £50,000. That same council sent two officers from technical services to Amsterdam, not for tulips or fig trees, but to watch people walking through revolving doors. Of course, Opposition Members know all about revolving doors—if they do not now, then by the time they have had to vote for a new leader, they will all be experts.
Perhaps the less said about Sheffield, the better—a city with the dubious distinction of being a training ground for Labour Members of Parliament. That city held the most expensive school sports day in history, the student games. It managed to frighten away Hamley, the famous toy shop, because the rates in Sheffield were higher than they were in Regent street. The list of examples is as unending as the shame that should attach itself to those Labour Members who have perversely sought to shield the very worst practitioners of the over-zealous application of regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and I therefore felt compelled to table new clause 14 which, unlike Labour's, does not masquerade as something it is not—the socialist extending the hand of friendship to the business community, accompanied as it is by a smile resembling the silver plate on a coffin. The fact is that 97 per cent. of all businesses in this country employ fewer than 20 people. Our clause is for them.
It is for the Minister, whom many regard as the spark plug of our deregulation initiative, to talk to the President of the Board of Trade, whom many regard as the vital

piston in the deregulatory engine. For it lies within the power of the President to come to the rescue, to stand shoulder to shoulder with shopkeepers, farmers and small businessmen. He must make an appeal mechanism a component of the Bill, and he does not need the permission of Jacques Delors to do so. He could do it tomorrow, or, even better, tonight.
What I propose does not require detailed negotiations with our Community partners, upon whom it has suddenly dawned that Britain's deregulatory approach has been the right one all along.

Mr. Steen: Has my hon. Friend found a device to enable small firms or people who are aggrieved by an over-zealous attitude to regulations to go somewhere local for an immediate conclusion to their dispute? Is it really that simple?

Mr. Sykes: A good question. The beauty of my new clause is that it is simplicity itself. It is user-friendly and everyone understands it. Unlike so many appeals procedures, this is not one of byzantine complexity. It is a simple measure that the world and, I hope, the Minister and the President of the Board of Trade will understand.
The debate takes place during a week when competitiveness in business has been given its rightful prominence. New clause 14 will underpin a new British competitive age by making the over-zealous official a thing of the past. It will be a regulation to regulate the regulator. The new clause is needed because an unjustified administrative order is a substantial wrong committed by the Crown against the subject. It is needed because justice has been common to our way of life for centuries. We ask only that the Government extend that principle to arm the small man against the over-zealous regulator.

Dr. Tony Wright: I always try to enjoy speeches by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) but I am finding it increasingly difficult to do so. Close contact with the hon. Gentleman over a long time has not helped matters a great deal. I had not intended to speak about his new clause, but I should like to make one comment on it. The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong to say that at no point in Committee did any of us suggest practical ideas to help the small business men of whom he spoke. I suggested a precise and practical idea—a small business support agency deliberately designed to meet the needs of small business men.
The idea came from a small business man in my constituency who said to me, "If the Government can set up a huge Child Support Agency at vast expense, why can they not set up a small business support agency to help me find the late payers who are crippling my business? I have neither the resources nor the mechanism to do that, but the problem affects every business in the land". Such an agency could carry out many other tasks, such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It could have investigatory and ombudsman functions for the small business sector.
I put that idea to the Minsiter in Committee, but he did not welcome it. I subsequently wrote to him, extending the idea, and although he said that it was "interesting" he felt that the Government did not want to set up a new agency for that purpose. That was a practical idea and a serious opportunity for the Government to help solve the kind of


problems that small businesses have identified. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will say that he has thought again about that practical proposal. It would bring joy to all the small business people in my constituency if he would announce his support for such a proposal.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for giving the House an opportunity to explore the whole question of the growth of unelected, non-accountable public bodies—the issue that is highlighted in our new clause. The Government returned to office promising to curb the growth of quangoland, regarding the whole excrescence as a product of the kind of corporatism which distinguished government in the 1970s. But the extraordinary reality is that there are now three times as many such bodies as there were in 1979, representing about £46 billion of public money—equivalent to a third of total public spending.
I am glad to have been associated with the report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, which documents in fine detail the growth of the unelected state. The most extraordinary feature of that development is that it has been presided over by the very people who used to tell us that the centre of their political credo was the attack on centralisation and over-extended government, and that their mission was to haul it back and constitutionalise it. That that has not happened is dramatically and momentously apparent.
I am happy to explore with the Government all kinds of devices to run government and the public services in new ways. I am prepared to explore agencies and contracting out. I am even prepared to explore the notion of the most senior civil servants being appointed in new ways. But if government is to be fragmented in that way it must always be accompanied by the extension and strengthening of democracy and accountability. If that is not done, a huge democratic and accountability deficit will open up. That is precisely what has happened, and the deficit has given rise to the extraordinary and scandalous events to which the Public Accounts Committee has had to draw attention in an unprecedented way. We have arrived at a moment very like that of 140 or 150 years ago, when the great Victorians had in their sights the corruption of the old patronage state and decided to bring it into the democratic era.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty relating the hon. Gentleman's speech to public bodies or small businesses. Perhaps he is about to elucidate.

Dr. Wright: Unless I am the subject of a monstrous deception—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening attentively and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's speech is very wide of new clause 4. Perhaps he will pull it back to that.

Dr. Wright: I shall, of course, try to be helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I was speaking to new clause 4, which is about public bodies and their relationship to the need for the kind of controls that we debated earlier. I introduced my remarks by referring to the interesting other new clause which attempts to help small businesses. That was the context of my speech; I am sorry if it was not sufficiently clear.
The attempt by new clause 4 to bring public bodies—the new patronage state—under the umbrella of control and

regulation will be seen as the historic equivalent of the attempt 150 years ago to constitutionalise the old patronage state. Interestingly, there has been only one serious study of patronage in Britain. It was written 30 years ago by an academic at the University of Reading and it is a rather meticulous, dry and scholarly book. It contains a comment at the end which may interest the House: the author said that the only danger that he could see on the horizon was that if one party exercised power for a prolonged period it could seek to use the patronage system in a partisan way to further its own interests. Precisely that danger has come to pass and makes most urgent the attempts at control and regulation that are being suggested.
I should like to relate the new clause to the Bill because the two are directly parallel. There has been an extraordinary growth in unaccountable, non-elected public bodies, representing the extension of state power in a quite new way that Parliament has failed to control. It was a great challenge to Parliament to provide that control and an indictment of Parliament that it has not done so. The key feature of the Bill is that it will enable Ministers to make orders to rescind primary legislation. The two elements are, first, the growth of ministerial patronage and the appointed state and, secondly, the Government's claiming to repeal primary legislation at will through orders—and the two sit together.
Will this Parliament allow that to happen? That is not a trivial question. It is rather important, and the answer will test Parliament itself. I must say to Conservative Members that it is striking that a political tradition which, historically, has attached itself to the importance of local government and of protections against a centralised state and has embraced the little platoons throughout society should have become the instrument of the most monstrous centralisation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West for highlighting that in his new clause. I hope that the House will understand what the new clause is trying to say.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: New clause 14 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), and, in spirit at least, we have with us my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), who somehow slipped between the earlier amendment and the new clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough has powerfully said—I will not back track over his arguments—new clause 14 is about giving the right of redress to a business that faces having to undertake large changes as a result of a decision by an official. Under the new clause, they may appeal through a magistrates court. We stand by that idea, which we proposed in Standing Committee, because we believe that it still provides the best mechanism for an impartial and judicial response to what is likely to be the imposition of an unfair decision.
The purpose of the Bill has always been deregulation. Yet it seemed to us that the one thing that was missing was a mechanism by which the ordinary business man or woman trying to go about his or her daily work has a right to challenge an unfair decision by an official. There is no such mechanism in the Bill as it currently stands. We urge and hope that the Government will think carefully about that.
I shall give only one example, although I could have given 100, which seems to enshrine so many of the problems faced by business men and women throughout


the land. It is the case of a dairy farmer, Mr. Downey, who was recently told that, under a new EC regulation, he would face criminal prosecution unless he makes regular returns of the exact quantities of milk that he uses on his farm to feed his stock. After all the mechanisms of going through and checking how he did that—by weighing them and everything else—he was told that he had to calculate the weight of the milk.
Mr. Downey also has a cafe where he serves his unpasteurised milk, and an environmental health officer told him that he could serve it only if he put up notices to say that it contained organisms that were harmful to health, and submitted it four times a year for special test. That was at a cost of more than £240. Mr. Downey thought that that was altogether far too much and now serves UHT milk instead. But the irony is that his milk had already been checked by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service and local environmental health officers, because his main activity was in making cheese. Why could not they get their act together instead of double regulating that poor individual, who was trying to go about his business? He was compensated eventually by a cheque for £199. That was after he had lost thousands of pounds worth of business as a result of having to close the cheese-producing end of his business and being left with only the rump of his business.
After all that, Mr. Downey was served a notice by the local environmental health office advising him that there were 22 illegalities on the farm under the hygiene regulations, which would cost him thousands of pounds to change, or a fine of £2,000 if he failed to comply. After making a huge fuss and having a row with them, they eventually checked and discovered that only two of the regulations were statutorily required. They dropped the whole lot. The new clause would have given him, and others, a chance to challenge that imposition, which would have cost him a lot of money.
We all know the reasons for the regulations and we have been around them endlessly. They are threefold: first, the single market has produced some 200 to 300 different directives, which have poured out as a result of that harmonisation mechanism; secondly, the continuing business in Europe of the common agricultural policy and the ghastly common fisheries policy; and, thirdly, the problem here at home of the attitude of our Ministers and their officials. On seeing that a new regulation is required, the smiles light up on their faces. They reach into the rag-bag of things that they wanted to do over the past 10 or 15 years, heave them out and throw them at the particular regulation and say, "There it is. Let us add that on the back, because it tidies it all up." They do not even concern themselves about how much it will cost or what effect it will have.
That problem has not gone away. A mass of legislation pours out of the House in response to every single aspect, worry, concern or pressure group. The salmonella scare over the chickens and the eggs ended up closing vast numbers of businesses. After thousands of people had got into deep trouble—some 5,000 egg producers were put out of business—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food abandoned the policy, because, as it discovered, the incidence of salmonella continued to rise after all those

impositions, and it did not get to the root of the problem by closing the businesses. The costs were absurd and they nearly destroyed too many businesses.
5.45 pm
The problem is that bureaucracy will continue to grow, and at a pace, unless we do something positive to check it and turn it around. That essentially is what the new clause is about. It will give the opportunity to somebody affected by that over-burdening, overweening bureaucracy to cry, "Stop. Check for a moment. They want to close me down, and I think that I have a chance to stay in business."

Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and powerful case, and an attack on his own Front Bench. Does he agree that some 70 per cent. of the regulations about which he is referring were brought in by his Government? Is not that really the problem?

Mr. Duncan Smith: Governments of all persuasions are the problem, because at the end of the day they are invited down this road by hon. Members, such as the hon. Gentleman, who listen to the pressure groups and say, "My God, we have to go—panic, panic. Let us get this done." We all jump up. We have wonderful cross-party consensus. We all say, "Great stuff. Wonderful. Let us get this regulation on the statute book." Then in six months or a year, business men cry out to us, "It is killing us." We must start rowing back in the other direction, which is what the Bill is about.

Mr. Sykes: Does my hon. Friend think it odd to be lectured by a Member of Parliament who voted for the social chapter, which would heap a new raft of regulations on trade and industry in this country? Will my hon. Friend ask him whether he will vote with us in the Lobby tonight on the Bill?

Mr. Duncan Smith: As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is galling to hear lectures from Labour Members. I certainly did not vote for the social chapter —I also did not vote for an awful lot of other stuff that came out of Maastricht, but that is neither here nor there. I resist lectures from Labour Members on the matter.
The reality is that it is not, as I said in the Standing Committee, about saying that every official out there is wrong and that every official is out to kill business. It is about saying that those on the extremes are the ones who are causing the problems, and we have to make them stop and think and check. It seems to me that only a mention of the words "health and safety" is enough to make everybody jump up and say, "My God, we must do something. Close that business down, because it is a real problem." Yet we find that we are way beyond the point at which there is a balance between cost and reasonableness.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we were talking about powers given to the police to deal with criminal matters, instead of those that are given for purely civil matters to the various bodies, all of what my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) calls "That lot opposite" would be up shrieking about civil liberties?

Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right, and makes a powerful point. His support for us on the new clause is welcome, and I take note of that.
I hope that, in 20 years' time, people will look back on the Bill and see it as the point at which the Government grabbed the nettle of the over-imposition of regulation. Our new clause is the way through which individuals can fight back for their businesses and livelihoods, and people will wonder why that did not happen a long time before. They will also wonder why the Opposition were not up and down on their feet supporting every single word of it. The new clause does not affect safety. It will not mean that many more people will be involved in accidents. It will not mean extra difficulties for those working on the shop floor, but simply that the long-held principle of a British citizen's right to a fair hearing, to be innocent until proven guilty, and to go about his or her lawful business without unnecessary hindrance is at stake.
I urge the Government to bear with us. I urge them not to allow pressure groups and officials to tell them, "No, no, Minister, we must not do this"; they should say, "Let us do it, because it is right. It is the only thing to do." That is what our people outside want to hear.

Mr. John Heppell: I had not intended to speak on new clause 14. It was first presented to me on the basis that we should try to secure some cross-party consensus. The hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) should consult some of the literature on how to win friends and influence people: insulting hon. Members across the Floor of the House is not likely to produce such consensus. It is amusing to watch the Morecambe and Wise act performed by the hon. Gentlemen, but they should try to get their timing right—or, if they cannot do that, try to get the balance right. All the matters that we are discussing are questions of balance.
The hon. Member for Chingford keeps talking about the individual. Amazingly, all the individuals involved happen to be business men. The hon. Gentleman never talks about individuals who are workers or consumers; he never talks about any individuals except business men.

Mr. Duncan Smith: 'The individual who is not running a business is also the individual who needs to be employed by the business. It is a fat lot of use to him when it has been closed down.

Mr. Heppell: I agree. I do not want businesses to be closed down; I want to encourage them as much as possible, and to ensure that unnecessary burdens are not placed on them. We must be careful, however, about what we deem necessary and what we deem unnecessary.
I really wanted to speak about new clause 4, which strikes me as being much more important than new clause 14. Its aim is to rein in the power of some of the unelected bureaucracies that are in control at present. The passage of the Bill so far has shown just how dangerous quangos can be; it has also shown how the Government operate. It has involved the establishment of a network of quangos—seven task forces, all containing appointees. The majority of those appointees are business men.
That reflects what is happening throughout the country. Bodies are set up with no democratic accountability; their members are hand-picked because of their views. They consult in secret and keep the results of that consultation secret. They make decisions on rules and regulations behind closed doors—decisions that are not released until the last moment. Last week, at the end of the process, we found that the Secretary of State had already set up a new

deregulation panel composed of placemen to deal with the legislation: before it has passed through either House, a new quango is already in existence.
I maintain that, without that kind of democratic deficit, we would not have seen many of the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). The district auditors would not have been investigating the health authority in Nottingham in connection with the Nottingham clinic; we would not have had one of our nurseries closed and then been told about the possibility of building new nurseries—but only if we were prepared to sell NHS land so that Sainsbury could build a supermarket; and other NHS land would not be, in effect, given away to private health operators.
The tragedy of all this is that the Government and the Conservative party do not accept that they are doing anything wrong: they think that there is nothing wrong with all these quangos. The personnel involved in the task forces, however, reflect the composition of quangos in general. Twelve of the companies represented on the committees concerned have made a total of 88 donations, worth £2.8 million: I suspect that that is one of the reasons for their membership of the quango. Another reason, I suspect, is the fact that 55 other donations have been made to four key Tory organisations, totalling nearly £700,000.

Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman please remind me which Prime Minister appointed his son-in-law ambassador to Washington?

Mr. Heppell: I think I can remember, but I am not sure that it is particularly relevant. My point is this: it would be just as wrong for me to fill a quango with trade unionists as it is for the Government to fill one with business men. We should do away with quangos altogether.
Four out of the seven task forces contain representatives of companies that have employed seven Tory Members, or ex-Members; four of the seven chairmen come from companies that have given large donations to the Tory party. Mr. Christopher Chope, who lost his Southampton seat, serves on the transport task force.

Mr. Norris: Very good man.

Mr. Heppell: Very good man, the Minister says.
It does not matter if a Tory Member or candidate loses in an election; if he does not get into Parliament, he will still be able to make decisions in unelected quangos, having been placed there by the Government. That is what I object to.
The Minister is not listening, but I shall continue none the less. Last week I talked to the chief executive of my local training and enterprise council. I told him, "I cannot accept the fact that there is no democracy in the way in which you make decisions, or in the placing of people on the TEC." In fact, members of the TEC pick their own successors: if someone leaves, the TEC chooses that person's replacement. The chief executive replied, "Yes, but these are all honourable men with the good of the community at heart."
In the main, I can accept that; but I cannot accept the idea that I should be willing to be ruled by business men. I cannot accept the "Lady Bountiful" attitude that business men know what decisions should be made better than I do. I believe that business has a part to play, and should be included in our deliberations, but business men should not make these decisions in isolation. They do not represent


the whole community. The only way in which to ensure that the community is represented is to establish public bodies that are accountable to the public.
People used not even to be able to vote unless they were landowners or had a business. We stopped that, because it was not democratic. Until just before the war, business men were allowed an extra vote simply because they were business men. We stopped that, too, because it was not democratic. I hope that hon. Members will support the new clause, because it attempts to restrict what is happening at present—the appointment of business men and Tory placemen—and to return us to proper, accountable democracy.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: In Committee, I was privileged to join my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) in tabling new clause 14, which I consider very important. I note a sense of anxiety in the House about time; as Henry VIII would have said to his many wives, "I shall not detain you for too long."
Henry VIII, in fact, was much cited in Committee in recent months, but I support the new clause on the ground that it is a Henry VII clause. That good king enabled his people to use the courts to right the wrongs perpetrated by officialdom many years ago. It is important to consider the conditions in which our industrial and manufacturing sectors and small businesses operate. Small businesses create jobs more efficiently than any other sector in this country. Between 1980 and 1988, the Conservative Government created 1 million new jobs, some of which have vanished because of the recession, predominantly in the small business sector, which is an efficient generator of jobs.
6 pm
The Labour party talks incessantly about manufacturing industry. Manufacturing industry is not some great monolith, but is supported by small contractors. Small businesses support large enterprises. If the Labour party is saying that it is not willing to support the small business man, it is talking through the other side of its head.
The Labour party talks incessantly about the consumer interest. The consumer must be given good value for money, for which there must be competition and efficient production. How will that be achieved if small businesses cannot compete against each other?
A more important consideration is the climate in which our country competes against what are now fashionably called the emerging markets. The western economies, particularly the United States, have invested £1,000 billion in setting up manufacturing institutions and industries throughout the Pacific rim, China, India and south Asia. Those countries produce the same goods as we can, but they do so much more cheaply. Do those countries have over-zealous regulation? Do they have the officialdom to which we are subjected in this country? Do people shut down businesses because the letter and spirit of the law has not been followed?

Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deva: No, I am sorry, but I will not.
Why are we discussing this very important Bill in total isolation, as though the rest of the world does not exist?

We debate health, protection, over-zealous regulation and deregulation as though we are on another planet. That is why I ask my ministerial colleagues to agree to our new clause. The new clause follows the spirit of remarks made by the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade and other people who are much more senior and more erudite than I in the Department of Trade and Industry.
The DTI's "Guide to Good Regulation", which was published this year, states:
The emphasis should be on compliance rather than on over-zealous enforcement.
In their efficiency scrutiny, the Government said:
We believe a culture of mistrust has developed over a number of years: openness and transparency in enforcement action seem to be the key to addressing this problem. We believe that a safety net of an independent appeals mechanism would provide justice for all, and impose sufficient discipline on enforcers to curb any excesses.
Our new clause addresses that problem. It would enable hard-working business men and small traders—the lifeblood of our country—to ask a magistrate for a stay of execution against a decision of an over-zealous official. That would concentrate the mind of the man imposing the regulation because he would have to make his case to a third party—a magistrate. With such a mechanism in place, businesses would expand, jobs would be created and our economy would grow.

Mr. William Cash: Ancient Greece provides a cautionary tale for the Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), the Law Commission and perhaps the House. When the rulers of ancient Greece considered a new law proposed by a member of the public, they would ask the proposer to stand on a platform. If they liked the law, they took away the noose; if they did not, they took away the platform.
The House should consider the vast amount of expenditure that is imposed on small businesses and business. Day in and day out, we impose duties on the British people which cost money. The money is not necessarily available, so there is a tremendous squeeze, with the Chief Secretary having to negotiate on how to reduce the PSBR from £50 billion to reasonable levels, or having to decide whether we should increase taxation to meet the difference.
We should take a more radical view of the duties that the House imposes and reduce them to a level that is reasonably practicable. Forty-three Members signed an amendment that I tabled, which I understand could not be selected for this debate. Unless we are prepared to reduce the level of regulation to which our businesses our subjected, unless we are prepared to say that, irrespective of the amount of money available, there will not be an absolute duty to meet regulations, enforceable by judicial review, which places a burden on quangos, small businesses or the British people, and unless we are prepared to accept that there is another route—to go only so far as is reasonably practicable, rather than to impose blanket mindless obligations that cannot be met because money is not available—we shall find ourselves in a pit of unpopularity, and that difficulty may be combined with an inability to pay.
Only last weekend, I visited a retail complex in my constituency which contained a number of businesses. I encountered the most amazing state of affairs. Six 1992 regulations have been introduced, purportedly under health and safety requirements, but actually under European


legislation. They include a list of duties for people and their employees. They include a list of about 15 to 20 activities such as twisting, turning, bending and stretching, for which there is a requirement to use goggles. It is unbelievable.
My hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) have suggested that magistrates should consider such regulations, which I believe are worthy of reference to a lunatic asylum. The regulations state that staff must be trained to put on goggles and to put on a jacket. An assessment must subsequently be made of every single person in the business. Businesses are subjected to the humiliation, embarrassment, absurdity and expense of this ridiculous nonsense, which is associated with the social chapter, which Opposition Members urge us to accept in their absurd European manifesto.
The Bill goes to the heart of the changes that are necessary. It might be only one swing of the pendulum in "The Pit and the Pendulum", but the walls are closing in on the people of this country. The only way in which we can extract ourselves from this position is by reducing the duties that we continually heap on the people and substitute for them that which is reasonably practicable and can reasonably be paid for. Until we make a decision on that, we shall remain in the vortex of difficulty that we have created for ourselves.

Mr. Steen: Before I take up the points made in the tremendous oration of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), which greatly moved the House, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). He has shown great courage and fortitude in tabling new clause 14, and the debate has attracted an enormous number of Conservative Members who are squeezed tightly together because of the shortage of space.
We could not have expected or hoped for a more sympathetic, more tuned in or more charismatic Minister than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. There is perhaps little point in our making speeches because the Minister knows it all. He knows that what we are saying is right and he knows the problems that need to be dealt with. I suspect that our speeches are merely delaying the moment when he says that he will not only do what we suggest and accept the new clause but will go even further. It is unkind of us to delay his opportunity to tell us the good news—an opportunity for which he has waited for several hours—that he will not only accept the main provisions of new clause 14 but will improve them and make additional suggestions.
The House is especially bright at picking things up immediately, so I cannot believe that it has not detected the fact that the new clause is an attempt to find a way of dealing with existing rules and regulations. We are not discussing the big issues, such as reducing the number of Acts of Parliament or getting rid of primary legislation; we are discussing how to establish a mechanism to enable people at the grass roots to obtain some justice in the interpretation of those rules and regulations.
Although we recognise that the Bill is an amazing step in the right direction and that it will cut through swathes of unnecessary administration and bureaucracy, it will take a little time to do so. It could be four to five years before its real impact is felt. One way of proceeding would be to introduce a similar Bill every year. The Minister should

take that suggestion to heart. Perhaps he could come to the House every year to respond to our debates—nothing would give us greater pleasure.
The main question covered in the new clause is how we get bevies of officials, paid for by the taxpayer, off the backs of the people when they are intent on pinning down their victims by enforcing a rule that they believe should be interpreted in a particular way. A rule will be interpreted differently in different parts of the country.
We need to involve a local tribunal, panel or administrator—one already in post. The beauty of the new clause is that it would not establish another quango or any further bureaucracy, but would make use of existing machinery to which we could give added responsibility and more work. We could perhaps call on the local tax inspector who is probably under-employed. It does not have to be the magistrate. We could ask the district surveyor or valuer. What about the rates panel—what do its members do—or the education appeals committee? I am sure that it could take on a little extra activity.
We need find only one or two such groups—there are many hundreds—and ask them to accept a bit of extra work. We should not expect to pay them for it—it is a voluntary activity although it is an important job. I do not care who takes on the work, but we need to find a way to ensure that the man in the street no longer feels victimised, persecuted, prosecuted, terrified or devastated by the little Hitler attitude of small-minded officials.
6.15 pm
In the past few weeks, I have several times raised the matter of over-zealous—I note that that has now become the "in" word—interpretation of regulations relating to filing cabinets by the administration of the Palace of Westminster. The administration is insisting that all filing cabinets have an anti-tilt device. Everyone in the House is familiar with that device, but it is nonsense. I have examined all the rules and regulations and there is no directive, either from Europe or from the United Kingdom, covering such matters. However, officials in the Palace of Westminster have decided that all filing cabinets that might tilt over and conk one on the head—though only if one opens all four drawers at the same time—have to be cleared out.
If a magistrates court in Westminster examined such a ridiculous interpretation by officialdom, we should not be getting rid of such filing cabinets. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) wish to intervene?

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is wise not to intervene while I am citing such a ridiculous example of bureaucracy and officialdom. As there is no method of appeal, officials are free to interpret as they wish. There is no way of stopping them. Even more serious, what would happen if every local authority inspector decided that every filing cabinet without an anti-tilt device had to be thrown away? What would be the cost to the taxpayer? [Interruption.] No, I do not have an anti-tilt device.
Filing cabinets are not the only problem. What about the height of desks? Colleagues do not realise that all their desks are to be thrown out because they are not the right height. That is not a result of European legislation or local officials; it is because officials in the Palace of


Westminster have decided that all desks have to be changed because one secretary has a back ache. That proves the absurdity of the rules and regulations and makes it clear why the new clause is extremely important.

Mr. Jenkin: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989? Has he noticed that a little tag or sticker has recently been put on the back of the electrical appliances in his office, or on their flexes, to show that a Palace official has checked them to ensure that no one could kill himself with them? Has he asked any officials to give chapter and verse of the regulation that requires such extensive checking? To my knowledge, no such regulation exists.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend's question is very timely and is evidence of his foresight because I was about to raise exactly that issue. I thought that my hon. Friend might mention it so I took the precaution of asking senior people in the Library to help me track down the relevant regulation. I received a letter which said:
I can find no regulations, or even codes of practice, which specifically mention
such a requirement. Therefore, the House has unnecessarily spent tens of thousands of pounds on sticking little numbers on flexes and power points, not to mention the £600 German hair dryers installed in some of the cloakrooms. Little numbers have also been stuck on typewriters and computers, which is wholly unnecessary.

Mr. Duncan Smith: To extend my hon. Friend's argument, the point is not just the Palace of Westminster, but the fact that throughout the land there are businesses that are now being told by a number of sources, "This is a regulation with which you must comply" when, in reality, it is not. Does my hon. Friend accept, therefore, that the big problem is that, without a form of challenge, businesses never dream of challenging what they are told is a regulation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before we go further, I point out that we are straying a little wide. We should be talking about business outside the Palace, and not business within the Palace. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has so far dwelt on business within the Palace.

Mr. Steen: I shall quickly move outside the Palace. I dwelt on what was happening within the Palace only to point out that if we cannot get it right without an appeals mechanism, how can we expect the little man to get it right?

Mr. John Garrett: I was tempted earlier to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he tilted when his drawers were pulled open, but I decided not to. Surely he is aware that the Palace of Westminster operates under Crown immunity. All he has to do is to speak to the Leader of the House, who is a member of his own party.

Mr. Steen: I know who my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) is. I am speaking to him and drawing his attention to this additional and unnecessary expenditure. I do not want to spend any more time on the matter and I must follow what Mr. Deputy Speaker has said in his important ruling.
The issue is this. If the Palace of Westminster cannot get it right, none of the small businesses and industries can get it right. I shall now give one or two examples outside the House and I shall explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough why his new clause is so important. Three enormous new barns have been built in my constituency in an area of great landscape value. The view is magnificent until one sees these whacking great barns. They were built in the wrong place, at the wrong height and without planning consent. What do the planners say?

Mr. Garrett: They say, "Pull them down."

Mr. Steen: They do not. The planners say, "Apply for retrospective planning consent." The developer has applied for retrospective planning consent and the officials will recommend that these whacking great barns, which are far larger than one would have contemplated, should stay.
Ten miles away, in the little hamlet of Aveton Gifford on the banks of the Avon, there is a little farmhouse. It has very little future because farming has declined. The farmers have converted their front parlour into a tea room and applied for planning consent. It is a beautiful little tea room in which wonderful cream teas are served. It is miles off the beaten track, so people cannot find it. The farmers have put a little cardboard sign in the grass by the side of the road which says, "Cream teas this way". They have been threatened with enforcement action by the local planners if they do not take that little cardboard sign out of the soil. The local authority is prepared for the farm to close if it goes bust. The farmers will not be able to find the money to survive, so the cream teas are important to them. Yet the whacking great barns can stay up for ever.
That is an example of why new clause 14 is so important and that is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs needs to respond in his customarily helpful and enigmatic way. If he feels that he cannot support new clause 14, I point out that he has 11,389 officials. Surely some of them can dream up a better new clause which will provide an even better solution to the problem.
I had a word with the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), before I spoke. He said that it might help my career if I did not speak for too long. I had to tell him that I did not have a career any longer, so it would not help me to speak for a short while. I support the new clause.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I support new clause 14. I am sorry that I was not present to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) speak in support of the new clause. I know that he speaks with the experience of having run a private business. He has, therefore, an understanding of the way in which regulatory over-kill impacts on business. In other words, he is not discussing this, as many Opposition Members will tonight, in a vacuum. He is discussing it in the light of his experience.
It is difficult for people outside the House to understand why their problems and concerns are not more adequately and satisfactorily represented in the House. I believe that the reason is, in no small measure, that, regrettably, there are fewer and fewer hon. Members who have had the experience of running businesses and of being on the receiving end of so much mindless bureaucracy.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): indicated assent.

Mr. Gill: I see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has a connection with a large business, nodding. I am not sure whether he is nodding in agreement. In a little while, I shall tell the House how seriously I regard the matter of over-regulation, not least because the burden bears down most heavily on the smaller businesses rather than on the bigger businesses.
The bigger businesses have the scope to designate a person within the business to look after this or that piece of regulation. I hope that Ministers understand that in a small business, where there may be only one owner-driver, that person has to be the salesman, the marketing director, the production director and the accountant, and he has to look after all the regulations. That is why so many of our small business men are absolutely fed up to the back teeth with so much regulation. Small business men know that when it comes to the implementation of that regulation, it is down to them.
Many hon. Members may be inclined to believe that small business men should react more strongly against the legislation that they resent and that they should be more troublesome about it. That again illustrates the lack of understanding in the House about a small business man's priority. His priority when he gets up in the morning is to go to his factory, and to produce a product that he can sell at a profit. He can then reinvest in the business to create more jobs, more products, more profit, more investment, more jobs and so on. It is a virtuous circle. What mitigates against that virtuous circle is the plethora of legislation.
I support new clause 14 because it would, for the first time, establish an appeals procedure which would involve the impartiality of the courts. From my own experience, I can tell the House without fear or favour that in all the jams I have been in when dealing with officialdom, there was no final arbiter to whom I could appeal other than the senior civil servant or local government officer. He is not, of course, exactly impartial in these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) has referred to the number of small businesses that have simply closed down because of the attitude of officials. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), in his invaluable contribution, mentioned how so much depends on the interpretation that officials put on a piece of legislation, which may vary from one local authority area to another.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with Opposition Members is that they have never run a business in their lives? If they had done so, they might be more supportive of the deregulation principle—

Mr. John Spellar: A real captain of industry.

Mr. Evans: Irrespective of what the hon. Gentleman says, at least I have had to meet a wage bill every week on behalf of eight employees. Opposition Members have never had to do that. That is the crux of the difference between us. Opposition Members have never had to meet a wage bill. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) agree that it would be useful if some of our local

officers, who have to interpret some of the rules and regulations, were seconded to industry? They would then get a better understanding of industry.

Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) raises an interesting point. Broadly speaking, he is probably correct in saying that not too many Opposition Members have run businesses. However, I detect a dawning realisation on the Opposition Benches that it is quite important to have successful businesses, because they create the wealth of the nation and employ our constituents. The sad thing is that not all Opposition Members are prepared to go that far and, undoubtedly, many have yet to see the light. Of course, it is satisfactory from our standpoint that they continue to squabble and bicker among themselves on this and many other subjects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford also mentioned the question of eggs and salmonella. I am on record as saying that, when the scare blew up in 1988, we immediately seized the wrong end of the telescope through which we peered at the problem. Why were Ministers considering the problem of eggs and salmonella through the wrong end of the telescope? It was simply because their officials handed them the wrong end of the telescope.
The knee-jerk reaction to that cry resulted in a great deal of extra, burdensome legislation being enforced in the egg and poultry industry, although some of it has been rescinded because it has been proved faulty. I do not blame Ministers nearly as much as I blame their officials for giving that advice in the first place. The only categorical statement one can make about that problem is that, if the housewives, the cooks, the chefs and anybody else involved in preparing food had cooked eggs and poultry correctly, there would have been no risk to human health whatever. In the interim, we have seen the slaughter of 3.5 million poultry at a cost of over £7 million to the taxpayer.
6.30 pm
I want to tell the House about the case of my constituent, Mr. Shaw of Morville, who is being pilloried even now by officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because he feels, with some justification in my opinion, that he is a victim of a vendetta simply because he stands up to the officials, says that they do not have the power to do what they want to do and tells them that, until they produce the legislation which empowers them to enforce what they say he must do, he is not letting them on to his premises.
The reason why Mr. Shaw is on the hit list of officialdom is not least because he was involved in a cause celebre. He went to court in defence of the nuns at Daventry and won the case, against all the officials. That went down very badly with the officials, to the extent that, even to this day, they hound my constituent Mr. Shaw, who runs a bona fide business responsibly and who conducts an enormous amount of valuable research work for the poultry industry, quite apart from maintaining a breeding stock and a blood-line, which would otherwise disappear and be a great loss to the whole British poultry and egg industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke about the responsibility of politicians. My goodness, we have a responsibility, because it is only as a result of our going through one Lobby or the other, night after night, that we have such an enormous weight of statute law. That situation—

Mr. John McAllion: That is because of the hon. Member's Government.

Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. McAllion: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it has had something to do with his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that an enormous amount of statute law has gone through the House?

Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. However, I took the trouble to go to the Library some weeks ago to see how the amount of statute law had varied from one year to another and from one Government to another. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that, while it is true that my team has not done ever so well, neither has his team. The honours are shared. The hon. Gentleman provokes me to say, while I am on my feet, that at least this Government have recognised the problem and are doing something about it. If the Minister has the good sense to adopt new clause 14, so ably proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and for Chingford, not only will he have done something about it, but he will have done so in a workmanlike manner.
My constituents and those of my hon. Friends want to be rid of the tyranny of officialdom. What the Government have to do and what any Government must do is hold the ring between, on the one hand, what is desirable and, on the other, what is necessary. Many Opposition Members are for ever coming to the House and saying what additional legislation they would like. I must say to them that much of that proposed legislation may be desirable, but not much of it is necessary.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Mr. Gill: May I finish the sentence? I especially want to tell my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench how important it is for the Government to hold the ring between what is desirable and what is strictly necessary.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member given way?

Mr. Gill: Of course.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend has made an important contribution to a very important debate, but there is one issue that I should like to correct. Most officials are carrying out their duties, they are doing their best and they are terrified about losing their jobs. One of the problems is corrected by the new clause. Because they are sometimes concerned about keeping their jobs, they go too far and that is why we need an appeals mechanism. The other point is that we have too many officials. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we reduced the number of officials, it would be far better?

Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend makes some interesting observations. Unfortunately, his intervention was not quite long enough for me to think of another peroration of the speech that I thought I had just finished. Notwithstanding that, my hon. Friend tempts me to comment on one or two things that he said.
I well remember going to a meeting organised by the tourist association of south Shropshire, where various farmers and farmers' wives came together to discuss how they could develop their properties for bed and breakfast,

overnight accommodation and so on. I had the audacity to stand up and say, in front of all the planning officers who were also present, that perhaps it would be easier for those people to provide bed and breakfast accommodation if they were allowed to convert their barns and buildings in the way they wanted. I said that I understood their problems because along comes an official, who says to them, "Not like that, not now, not in that shape and form; re-submit an application."
Of course, the officials pointed out that it was as a result of the activities of this House that they were empowered to take such an attitude. So we cannot shuffle off blame from the House to the hundreds of thousands of officials who are empowered to enforce rules and regulations. There are too many regulations and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams that there are too many officials as well.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I am sure that I speak for the entire House when I welcome the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to our proceedings. If ever a demonstration were needed that the inter-party truce had come to an end, that must be it. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)—nice, emollient, reasonable and moderate—has been replaced by the red rottweiler from Oldham.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West made a passionate speech in favour of new clause 4. I normally associate him with passionate speeches on old clause IV. We do not hear so much of that any longer because a new spirit stalks the land, especially in Bambi land, which is occupied by Opposition Members. They now have to pole-vault over one another in their speeches to become ever more right wing to appeal to their electorates.
We heard a vintage right-wing performance from the hon. Member for Oldham, West, which I might have been capable of making before I joined the Government. He spoke, for example, in defence of those old-fashioned Thatcherite themes of cutting government, reducing the amount of interference in people's lives, destroying quangos and reducing the size of the civil service. The hon. Gentleman may be under some misapprehension because it is in his party that there is a leadership vacancy. He is appealing to the wrong audience.
The hon. Gentleman's speech seemed not to go to the heart of his new clause, if I may put it in that delicate way. He talked about quangos in general and quoted in particular a report that has appeared in the newspapers of a body called Democratic Audit, which has criticised the Government performance on quangos. He claimed that Democratic Audit was an independent body. I do not know anything about its membership but I am slightly suspicious. It may be as independent as the German Democratic Republic was democratic.
The truth of the matter is otherwise to that which the hon. Gentleman asserts. Over the past 15 years, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of quangos. The hon. Gentleman can reach the figures that he has been quoting only if he includes grant-maintained schools, for example, where, for the first time, parents and others with a direct interest in the education of their children have a voice. If grant-maintained schools are counted as quangos, I shall be delighted to see more of them. Indeed, that policy could be applied to many other areas.
In the few minutes that are available to me. I shall talk about some of the serious policies that my hon. Friends endorse—some Opposition Members have professed to endorse them—and which form the basis of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and many other hon. Friends in a variety of philippics in the past hour and three quarters, or so.
I have no difficulty in saying to my hon. Friends that I share their analysis of the problems that beset us. I share also their objectives in trying to do something to overcome them. I wish to try especially to provide an appeals mechanism that is quick, effective and cost-effective and will not create a new bureaucracy within which people will be subsumed. That was one of the many good points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). I hope that, as a result of the deregulation initiative, we shall be able seriously to examine the difficulties and produce practical solutions.
6.45 pm
We are doing many things that will assist us in achieving our objective. We are trying in particular—this emerged in Committee, where there was consensus on the matter—to bring together the regulators and those who are being regulated, to ensure that there is clarity of purpose among those making the rules. We wish to ensure that there is a good dialogue on enforcement policies, that: there is adequate consultation, a courteous and efficient service, the minimisation of compliance costs and, especially, well-publicised, swift and effective complaints procedures that are easily accessible to business.
We are doing all those things. That provides us with part of the answer, but I emphasise, "part". I accept that there is a need to go further.
We must ask ourselves whether the courts will provide us with the right answer. Far be it from me to speak ill of my profession—the law. I have no intention of doing that in case I might need to take it up again one day. My experience of the courts, and as a Member, in terms of the interests of businesses, does not incline me to believe that the courts offer the perfect mechanism by which we can solve all the difficulties that my hon. Friends and others have brought before us.
I can illustrate that by taking an example that is set out in the Bill—the provision of children's certificates for pubs. We have already been receiving complaints that the magistrates courts—the mechanism by which the certificates will be granted—are in some instances taking an overly restrictive attitude towards the new liberality that those who support the Bill are trying to bring about. For example, I have a letter from a firm of solicitors complaining about the licensing committees of Birmingham and Sheffield. The letter states that the committees
have attained some notoriety within licensing circles for their lack of flexibility, and rigid adherence to their policies in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I have other letters about, for example, Carlisle where it is alleged that the statements on
policy on the provision of family rooms under the law as it stands … are both unreasonable in themselves and bode ill for the future children's certificates regime.
I shall quote shortly from the policy of the Carlisle justices. The quote may illustrate to my hon. Friends why I think that the magistrates courts may not be the ideal solution and may not provide an answer to their problems. The justices state that they

do not favour the provision in licensed premises of what are generally known as 'family rooms', that is to say, rooms specially provided to accommodate children.
They continue to assert that
they would not favour the proposition of a family room in a busy city or suburban public house … the provision of other children's facilities (such as swings or climbing frames) in the garden or car park of such premises, would not by itself influence the justices in favour of a family room in those premises.
The justices would require
suitable toilet accommodation to be provided for the use of children only, quite apart and separate from that provided for adults.
And so on and so forth. As I have said, it may be that the magistrates courts do not provide a forum in which businesses are likely to be given the most sympathetic hearing.
Appeals mechanisms are already provided in some instances, which would be overridden by the general provisions of new clause 14. We would have to examine carefully the way in which the clause might supersede or duplicate the existing enforcement and appeals powers. I have asked the deregulation task force to examine with care the problems that are being faced by businesses throughout the country, which I fully accept.
I have no difficulty in saying that the absurd cases that my hon. Friends have brought forward are a more than adequate demonstration of the need to find a solution to the problem. We must be certain, however, before we make any policy decision, that we shall not make the problem worse.
The essence of the deregulation initiative is that we should think extremely carefully, think even more carefully—I say this in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—before we legislate. We must cost what we propose to do and think through the consequences of our decisions. I hope that the deregulation task force will be able quickly to produce a proposal. I am sure that the matter will be dealt with at length in another place.
Given the opportunities that are available for the Government to take, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough to withdraw his new clause. As I have explained, there are opportunities for the Government to take a policy decision. If my hon. Friend withdraws his clause and the matter goes to another place, the basis of the debate there will consequently be more informed. I fully support what my hon. Friend wants to achieve, but I am not certain that the mechanism that he has put forward is the one to realise his objective. Therefore, I am not able to accept his new clause.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West has gone halfway towards achieving what my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough wishes to achieve. I had half a mind to astonish him—perhaps horrify him—by accepting his new clause. I am not prepared to do that, however, for the reasons that I have set out in my response to my hon. Friend's new clause. On that basis, I hope that both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will not press their new clauses.

Mr. Fatchett: During the past hour and a half, facts have rarely intervened on some of the prejudices that have been peddled enjoyably by Conservative Members. It may be worth while to recall that 71 per cent. of the orders and regulations which now cover industry and which are a so-called burden on industry were introduced by this


Government. Conservative Members should ask themselves what they are doing when they go into the Division Lobby at night and slavishly follow their Whips.
It may be worth while to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). He said that the last Labour Government's record and this Government's record were about the same with regard to regulations. He embellished the point by saying that he had visited the Library to discover the facts. His visit was not wholly fruitful.
The simple fact is that this Government have introduced almost twice as many regulations and orders as did the previous Labour Government. As the hon. Member for Ludlow played such a keen part in the opposition to the Maastricht Bill, he should know the reason for that imbalance. Much of that relates to secondary legislation from the European Union. That accounts for the substantial difference and change in the quantity of regulations.
There are many weaknesses in new clause 14 because of the procedures that are to be used. The route via the magistrates court would be a lawyer's gold mine. There would have to be case law and precedent and there would be one case after another. That is not the way to deal with the problem to which the new clause relates.
There would also be a lack of uniformity. All Conservative Members have said that they are looking for uniformity and sensitivity in terms of the application of regulations. New clause 14 will not achieve those objectives. If the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) decides to press his new clause to a Division, my hon. Friends will be asked to vote against it because we believe that it is defective in terms of achieving the hon. Gentleman's objectives.
I have another point for the hon. Member for Scarborough. In his opening comments, he turned on my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and said that she was not in the Standing Committee when it debated fire safety and hotels. I remind the hon. Member for Scarborough that, at columns 774 and 775 of the report of the Committee proceedings of 24 March, he had an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, which seems to suggest that they were both present then.

Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put the record straight. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to me, he would know that I referred to Thursday 28 April when I moved new clause 21 on the very subject that we are discussing today. That was when the hon. Member for Hillsborough was in South Africa.

Mr. Fatchett: We will consider the record on that matter.

Mrs. Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I know that the House wishes to reach a conclusion on this issue in a few moments.

Mrs. Jackson: Very briefly, the point that the hon. Member for Scarborough failed to answer related to a question about fire safety specifically. I remembered the interchange in Committee, for which we were both present. That was the intervention that I spoke about.

Mr. Fatchett: I no longer intend to be a conduit in the conversation between two other hon. Members.
I must tell the hon. Member for Scarborough that we will not support new clause 14.
New clause 4, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) introduced some time ago, is about the burdens imposed on business by the quangos that have been set up by the Government; the extent to which they now account for a substantial proportion of gross national product and public expenditure; and the extent to which they are bodies in respect of which it appears that the only qualification for membership is that one is a supporter of the Conservative party, a member of the Conservative party or related to someone in either of those categories. Any other attribute seems to be of no importance.
When Conservative Members who have spoken so vividly on other occasions about Maastricht and accountability are not prepared to support new clause 4, their arguments about accountability and democracy become somewhat thinner. The crucial point about new clause 4 is that it makes this place more able to make accountable money that is spent on our behalf.
We are opposing the sleaze, corruption and waste involved in the number of quangos that the Government have established. A keen and obvious theme arises from these debates: the Opposition are in favour of open and clean government; Conservative Members are not. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to support new clause 4.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 284.

Division No. 252]
[6.54 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Austin-Walker, John
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Battle, John
Dafis, Cynog


Bayley, Hugh
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Darling, Alistair


Bell, Stuart
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Berry, Roger
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Betts, Clive
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boateng, Paul
Dowd, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Enright, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Burden, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Byers, Stephen
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Garrett, John






George, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Miller, Andrew


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Godsiff, Roger
Morgan, Rhodri


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morley, Elliot


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Graham, Thomas
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hall, Mike
Olner, William


Hanson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Harman, Ms Harriet
Patchett, Terry


Harvey, Nick
Pickthall, Colin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pope, Greg


Heppell, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoon, Geoffrey
Purchase, Ken


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hutton, John
Reid, Dr John


Illsley, Eric
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Ingram, Adam
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rogers, Allan


Janner, Greville
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jowell, Tessa
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Clare


Keen, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Skinner, Dennis


Khabra, Piara S.
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Litherland, Robert
Soley, Clive


Livingstone, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spellar, John


Loyden, Eddie
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Steinberg, Gerry


McAllion, John
Stevenson, George


McAvoy, Thomas
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McCartney, Ian
Straw, Jack


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Turner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Vaz, Keith


Mackinlay, Andrew
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McLeish, Henry
Wareing, Robert N


McMaster, Gordon
Watson, Mike


MacShane, Denis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


McWilliam, John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Madden, Max
Wilson, Brian


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Winnick, David


Mahon, Alice
Wise, Audrey


Mandelson, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Marek, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wright, Dr Tony


Martlew, Eric
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Maxton, John



Meacher, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michael, Alun
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Alan Meale.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)


Aitken, Jonathan
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)


Alexander, Richard
Amess, David





Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkins, Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gallie, Phil


Bates, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garnier, Edward


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gillan, Cheryl


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)






Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luff, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


MacKay, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Maclean, David
Speed, Sir Keith


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Mans, Keith
Spring, Richard


Marlow, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stephen, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Sweeney, Walter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Sykes, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Patnick, Irvine
Trimble, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Ward, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Watts, John


Richards, Rod
Wells, Bowen


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Robathan, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilshire, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Tom
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim



Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 59

FUNCTIONS OF MINISTERS AND OFFICE-HOLDERS

Amendment proposed: No. 101, in page 51, line 31, after 'by' insert 'subsection (1A) or'. — [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Government amendment No. 102.

No. 42, in page 51, line 36, leave out from
'section' to end of line 37 and insert—


'(a) in relation to any function of a Minister, without first consulting any officer exercising the function on behalf of the Minister and any organisation appearing to the Minister to be representative of such officers, or
(b) in relation to any function of an officer-holder, without first consulting him, any officer exercising the function on his behalf and any organisation appearing to the Minister to be representative of such officers.'.

No. 93, in page 51, line 37, at end insert
'and informing those bodies or persons likely in his opinion to be affected by any extension of these functions, and any representative organisation of such bodies or persons as the Minister may consider appropriate.'.

No. 45, in clause 60, page 52, line 28, at end insert—
'(3A) The Minister shall have regard to any representations made during the consultation under subsection (3) above and if it appears to him, as a result of that consultation, that it is appropriate to vary the whole or any part of his proposals, he shall undertake such further consultation with respect to the variations as they appear to him to be appropriate.
(3B) When a draft of an order under this section is laid before Parliament under section 67(2) below, the Minister shall, at the same time, lay before Parliament a statement giving details of any consultation undertaken as required by subsection (3) above.'.

No. 43, in clause 61, page 53, line 7, at end insert 'or
(d) it is a power or duty to determine the amount of any payment from public funds due under any enactment to any person.'.

No. 9, in clause 63, page 54, line 6, after 'subsisting', insert
'provided that the relevant contract is scheduled to be in force for no more than three years'.

No. 18, in clause 67, page 57, line 9, at end insert—
'(1 A) An order under section 59 above relating to a function of a Minister shall contain a provision requiring an annual report to be laid before Parliament on the exercise of that function by, or by employees of, such person (if any) as may be authorised in that behalf by the Minister whose function it is'.

Mr. Garrett: I wish to speak to amendment No. 42, which calls for Ministers to consult representatives of civil servants in the process of contracting out.
One of the most serious casualties of the changes in Government service has been the former participative management style of the civil service. That is part of a pattern. Whenever they can, Ministers treat their civil servants as disposable rather than as a valuable resource. The civil service has changed in my time from a model employer to an authoritarian and uncaring one.
Consultative arrangements of long standing have been overthrown. For example, when agencies were set up, trade unions were never consulted on the governing framework documents that set out their activities and the performance required from them. Those framework documents established the performance required of the agencies, but never referred to personnel policies or consultative arrangements.
We know from an Efficiency Unit document that Departments and agencies are under no obligation to consult recognised unions in the civil service about the policy and principles relating to the market testing of particular statutory functions. That document simply says that Departments and agencies may wish to inform their recognised trade unions about any decision to make an order which might affect their staff's terms and conditions of service and/or working arrangements. I also see that Diana Kahn of the Efficiency Unit told union representatives on 4 February that the fact that a service may be delivered by someone other than a civil servant was not, in itself, justification for consultation.
I assume that during the 40-day period for general public consultation on a contracting-out order under the


Bill, trade unions should be consulted on the prospective effects on employees of such an order. Such a request seems to be the least that should be required of a decent employer.
We have had the example of the transfer of the Warren Spring laboratory, which did environmental technology studies, to AEA Technology. That followed a consultancy report after a four-week study. The fate of that great institution was decided after a four-week study by PA Consulting, which is itself an environmental consultancy. Only 18 months earlier a Department of Trade and. Industry Minister allowed Warren Spring to build new premises as an act of faith in its future.
Trade unions were given no chance to question the assumptions of that consultancy study. I should have thought that that was less than professional practice on the part of the consultants. The terms of reference were secret. The unions were allowed to see the report only after the decision to close Warren Spring had been taken, and then only to discuss the consequent redundancies.
It is clear that decisions on the closure and privatisation of Ministry of Defence facilities—with, it is said, the loss of up to 25,000 jobs—will be made in July, at the end of the parliamentary Session. I should like to know what consultation with the staff representatives the Government intend to allow on those redundancies. The unions have constantly pressed to be involved in the Ministry of Defence review process, with no result. They have been told that no proposal arising from those studies can be revealed or can be the subject of consultation. Much of the contracting out will proceed without a market test or on the basis that an in-house bid is disallowed. So civil servants are expected to surrender their jobs without consultation.
In my constituency, Her Majesty's Stationery Office is the subject of a so-called commercialisation study. There has been no consultation with the staff, who are completely in the dark as to their future. One thing about market testing is that, if an in-house bid wins, the staff are forced to compete for their jobs once again three years later. There could hardly be a worse example of personnel practice.
Departments often act unlawfully in contracting out. Recently, the Home Office was to be taken to the Central Arbitration Committee for failure to consult on the specifications for market testing under section 181 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978; then, seeing the error of its ways, it had to settle before the hearing, having been advised that it would have to consult its staff under the Act.
At present no fewer than six cases are being brought before industrial tribunals for non-consultation under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—against the Home Office, the Scottish Office and Bureau West of the Ministry of Defence. Those processes are an object lesson in bad management for what was, some years ago, a model employer.
7.15 pm
Not only do the Government not consult: they refuse even to discover what their employees think. That brings us to the remarkable case of the survey proposed by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. Not only will the Government not consult civil servants: they want to stop Parliament consulting them. When I was a member of the Select Committee some months ago, I proposed that its Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee should carry out an attitude survey of civil servants, particularly junior

civil servants, to find out what had been the impact of all the Government changes on the people who do the work in Departments.
I proposed that undertaking for two reasons: first, because it was not sufficient for a Select Committee studying the civil service simply to take evidence from the great and the good—from Ministers, senior civil servants and academics—without finding out what the workers thought; and, secondly, because I wanted to establish that Select Committees were entitled to research budgets. To my slight surprise, the Committee accepted my proposal.
The reaction of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the head of the civil service to the proposal was ludicrous. Both accused the all-party Committee which had accepted the survey proposal of having political motives. Yet they had both seen the proposed questionnaire, which simply asked the respondents how they had been affected by the Government's changes to the civil service and what they thought of the civil service as an employer.
Sir Robin Butler, the head of the civil service, who is fast becoming a laughing stock as a Government apologist, said to a Conservative member of the Treasury Select Committee that if Parliament wanted to know about civil service morale, it could ask him. He also referred to the dangers of "outside bodies"—as he said, in a sinister way —researching the civil service. He had to be reminded by the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), that
We are not just an outside body, we are Parliament".
Neither Sir Robin nor the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can stop the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee interviewing 500 civil servants. Yet they are both trying to stop the Committee writing to them. Their position is untenable. If the Government continue to refuse to co-operate, the Committee will have to issue an interim report to the House saying that its will is being contemptuously thwarted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—a matter on which I hope there would be a vote in the House.
We all know that staff consultation and participation in the civil service is now abysmally bad. A recent survey in the Treasury—the home of the mandarins—was answered by 70 per cent. of the staff. Some 68 per cent. of those who answered thought that Treasury top management was poor or very poor at communicating with its staff, while 9 per cent. thought that it was good. Only 11 per cent. thought that the Treasury was good at managing change. Only 13 per cent. thought that the Treasury's change programme was clear and focused.
So you can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the argument for consulting staff before Departments are turned upside down. The civil service is in turmoil, and the staff, who are committed public servants trying to follow the public ethos under which they were recruited into the civil service, are being treated despicably by the Government.
In my 30 years' involvement in civil service matters, I have never known morale to be so low or civil servants to be treated in such an offhand way. We consider that civil servants have the right to be consulted on matters that affect their livelihood. Amendment No. 42 seeks to offer them a modest degree of protection.

Mr. McAllion: The amendments that we are debating seek to amend clause 59, the purpose of which is to make contracting out and privatisation easier. However, I note


from Government amendments Nos. 101 and 102 that even the Government want to exempt some of the functions of the civil service from the process of making privatisation and contracting out easier to handle. In particular, Government amendment No. 102 refers to the courts, the sheriff courts and the Court of Session in Scotland and the courts down here in England and Wales.
Perhaps the Government have learnt from their experience of contracting out the prison escort service to Group 4 just how bad it is to contract out, market-test or remove from the public sector vital services such as the courts service and the Prison Service. I note that that is the only part of the state that the Government are prepared to exempt from the contracting-out process—no doubt because they have always seen the state in terms of law and order and nothing else. They do not see the role of the state and of society as being to provide any kind of service; to them, the purpose of state and society is simply to provide the stick with which to beat people and coerce them into accepting whatever the market dictates at any particular time.
I support the amendments standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which seek to ensure that, before any order is laid making it easier to contract out or privatise any of the departmental activities in the civil service, the Government must not only consult civil servants and their trade unions but take heed of what that consultation has told them. That is an important consideration.
It is vital that this Government—of all Governments —are made to listen to what the civil service has to say about market testing and privatisation. It sometimes strikes me that some Ministers are completely unaware of the effect that market testing, privatisation and contracting out are having on the civil service. Some time ago, a copy of the Cabinet Office Efficiency Unit report was leaked to the Financial Times; it indicated that, last year, the Government spent some £565 million on bringing outside consultants into the civil service in the search for savings. The report suggested that that £565 million secured only £10 million of savings to the public purse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) raised the matter with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 9 May, and the right hon. Gentleman replied by saying that my hon. Friend was "completely confused". He continued:
The annualised cost of consultants is probably about £1 million. The total cost of consultants is about £10 million."— [Official Report, 9 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 15.]
I have a copy of the emerging findings of the multi-departmental scrutiny of the Government's use of external consultants, dated March 1994. Paragraph 5 of the introduction says:
In 1992–93 Departments and Agencies spent around £565 million on external consultants".
Who has it right? Is the Cabinet Office's Efficiency Unit right in saying that £565 million was spent in a single year, or did the Chancellor have it right when he said that the annualised cost was about £1 million and the total cost just £10 million? They cannot both be right—somebody has to be wrong.
As the Chancellor is a very honourable Member of the House, and would not dare to tell lies to the House, it seems that he simply does not know what is going on in the civil

service or what the impact of market testing and privatisation has been. The amount spent by the Government on consultancies, for example, seems to have escaped his notice completely.
I sought to find a solution to the problem by asking the Prime Minister when the Government intended to publish the Efficiency Unit report so that the House could make a judgment on who was right. I was told:
The final report of the Efficiency Unit's scrutiny on the Government's use of external consultants will be completed shortly. It is the normal practice for Efficiency Unit's reports to be published. A decision on publishing the report will be made when the final report has been received."—[Official Report, 16 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 306.]
In other words, the parliamentary route to finding out what is going on in the market-testing process has been blocked off. The answer was that the Government have not even made up their mind to publish the Efficiency Unit report which has been produced by the Cabinet Office. Whether or not the report is published in the future will depend on the nature of the report, and I find that completely unacceptable.
When I telephoned the Chancellor's office, I was informed that it is normal for all efficiency scrutinies to be published in due course. Yet here we have an answer from the Prime Minister saying that the decision on whether or not to publish has not been arrived at by the Government. We can be fairly confident that the report will not be published before 9 June, and we can be equally confident that it will not be published before the Bill winds its way through its various parliamentary stages. We suspect that it may never be published because it may be too damning of the whole market-testing and contracting-out process on which the Government have embarked.
It is vital that the Government are forced to talk to the civil service and to provide it with the kind of information that it requires so that it can give its views of what impact the process is having. It is important to keep in mind the context in which this debate is taking place. It is not just a question of market testing: it is a question of seeing how public money can be spent most efficiently and whether the in-house bid is as efficient as the tender that has come from the private sector. If that were happening, there would be a different argument, but in numerous speeches outside the House, Minister after Minister has made it absolutely clear that the Government have a test called the "prior options" test which must be applied to every single departmental activity in the civil service.
The question that must be asked before any other is whether or not the activity has to be carried out at all. Can it be abolished? If the answer to that is no, the second question is asked: can it be privatised directly and given straight to the private sector without any competition? If the answer to that is no, the third question is: can it be contracted out directly to the private sector? Only if the answer to the third question is no do the the Government ask: can it be market-tested; can the in-house bid be tested against the external tenders?
It is clear that the Government intend to come up with a kind of final solution for the civil service—a "year zero" for the state as we have known it since 1945. They want to reduce the present civil service from around 550,000 people to a core of just 50,000, with everyone else who currently works in the public sector being contracted out to the private sector or directly privatised into the private sector. That is the Government's aim; that is what they are all about.
Against that background, we must ask whether the Government have any idea of the effect that their policy is having on the civil service. I have a copy of a letter sent by the Council of Civil Service Unions to the Minister responsible for the civil service, referring to a meeting the CCSU held with him to discuss the process of market testing in the civil service. It points out a whole series of problems that civil servants have identified and which the Government should take on board. It points out the danger of loss-leader bids, in which a bid comes in from the private sector which is well below anything that the in-house team could produce to win the contract. However, once the contract is up for renewal three, five or 10 years later, the contractor can put any kind of demand that it wants against the public sector and the taxpayer has to pay.
The letter also makes a point about the collapse of morale in the civil service, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) referred. People are living in fear for their jobs and for the conditions which they have secured during many years inside the public sector. The market-testing process is undermining the position that those in the public sector enjoy at the moment. That will not add to the efficiency of the civil service, as any reasonable person would quickly understand.
The letter further draws attention to a series of other problems, including the fact that in-house bids—including bids within the Inland Revenue—have been stopped by civil servants themselves. No satisfactory answer has been given to questions about the confidentiality and privacy of tax records. These are public issues, and if we cannot get access to the answers in the House, at least the civil servants should get access through a consultation process that allows them to talk to Ministers about the impact of the Government's policies.
The letter even talks about something which may be news to many hon. Members. When dealing with what are called new green-field sites—if a Department opens up a new office on a completely new site anywhere in Britain —there is no question of the in-house bid being allowed by the Government to win the contract. The contract for the new green-field site must come from the private sector.
One of the final points in the letter may come as a complete shock to many Conservative Members. An example is given of an in-house bid, for the issue of special vehicle registration marks, which was £2 million cheaper than a bid from a contractor; although the contractor's bid was £2 million dearer than the in-house bid from the civil service the Government gave the contract to the private sector.
Those scandals and disgraces should not be tolerated by the House. Yet they are being tolerated because of the process that is going on behind the scenes—an attempt to wreck the civil service and privatise it as far as it can be privatised.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was worried earlier about the weight of laws passed by the House and said that so much statute was a burden on business, making it impossible for businesses to operate efficiently in the marketplace. He drew a distinction between laws that are desirable and laws that are necessary. The implication was that Conservative Members want only laws that are absolutely necessary. They do not want laws that may be desirable—however good they may be—including laws to provide civil rights for people with disabilities. Conservative Members may mouth support for such rights,

but when it comes to the reality of going through the Lobby to support them and put them on the statute book, they do nothing about it.
7.30 pm
It is absolutely desirable and necessary to end the scandal of low pay in the civil service. Its employees do not merely number the mandarins at the top, earning £350,000; they include people on some of the lowest wages paid in this country.
Earlier this month my union, the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, for which I act as a parliamentary consultant, and the Low Pay Unit issued a report entitled "Northern Exposure: Poverty Pay in the North", which pointed out that the average household in the north had £36 less per week to spend than the average British household, and that more than one third of those working full time in the north earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold.
The report also pointed out that it had discovered in a study of civil servants working in the Department of Social Security—cleaners, whose work had been contracted out as part of the process on which the Government are so keen —that staff numbers had had to be reduced by almost a third although the work remained the same and pay for the contract was cut from £3.78 an hour to £2.60. The cleaners also lost pensions, holiday entitlement and sick pay.
We must protect such workers by introducing a national minimum wage. I believe that; so do all Opposition Members and perhaps even some Conservative Members. A majority of the people outside this House definitely support that sort of legislation, but we cannot achieve it because the Government can railroad through anything, tell us anything and deny us information because of their majority. We cannot get access to the facts about what is going on in the real world and in the civil service outside this place.
The amendments are vital. At least if the Government were obliged to talk to civil servants and civil service trade unions and to pay heed to what the latter told them we might have some protection and might at least be able to maintain a stable position until the next general election and the election of a Labour Government, which is the best hope for the civil service and for everyone else in this country.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I think that my hon. Friends have pointed out the dangers to public servants in this part of the Bill. I suggest that a much greater danger exists, but it is surely to the Government's advantage to treat their employees—public servants—reasonably and decently if they want to achieve their objective. We might not like those objectives and nor might those who must carry them out, but it would surely be to the Government's advantage to do it decently. My hon. Friends have shown that, for some reason that I cannot fathom, the Government are not doing so.
Before mentioning the constitutional aspects at the heart of amendment No. 93, which is in my name, can the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs explain now, or when he replies, Government amendments Nos. 101 and 102? I am not sure whether he moved them formally or decided not to move them at all. Irrespective of that, I do not understand amendment No. 101, which is on the Order Paper as:
Page 51, line 31 [Clause 59], after, `by' insert 'subsection (1A) or.


Clause 59(1)(c), in line 31, states:
which is not excluded by section 61 below.
The amendment would mean that it would read, "which is not excluded by subsection (1A) or section 61", but I cannot find a subsection (1A) in that clause, nor can I find one in clause 61.
Perhaps, after some reflection, the Minister will tell me whether I have got it wrong, whether something in the printing is wrong or whether he has got it wrong—perhaps all three of us have. As parliamentarians, that is the sort of thing that we are supposed to do at this stage.
Government amendment No. 102 seems to limit what might have been an overgeared power. At the end of clause 59—I have got my answer as I now see that that amendment adds the new subsection (1A). The amendment limits the Minister's powers. I apologise for not having understood, but I want to know whether the amendment has been moved. If it has, why did not the Minister briefly address the House when we started this group? That would have been courteous. His comments would have appeared in the record at that point in the debate rather than in his reply, which he may make in a minute or two.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman immediately. I had understood that the lead amendment was not controversial. It was tabled in answer to criticisms by Opposition Members and others. As far as I am aware, no one is opposed to it. I shall refer to it in my winding-up speech.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister and I apologise to him and to the House for not understanding that amendment No. 101 is the lead amendment. Perhaps I am oversensitive on the subject, but these debates are not merely for the cognoscenti. Many of us have not had the privilege or the penance—I am not sure which it would be —of being a member of the Standing Committee, although we take a great interest in the matter.
Even if the Minister had only said, "I move paving amendment No. 101 and amendment No. 102, which fulfils an obligation" and so forth, there would have been three lines in Hansard and people who read it, rather than ploughing through- the report of the Committee, would have been thoroughly in tune. I am sorry that he did not do so.
I shall now go through a sequence of my thoughts on my amendment No. 93 and I want the Minister to comment on the accuracy and reasonableness of what I have to say in his reply. Part II of the Bill, which is entitled "Contracting out", will cause as much difficulty as part I and clause 4, which we are no longer discussing.
This part of the Bill will contract out functions, not merely activities, to private organisations, the Benefits Agency, the Roads Agency or any local authority agency. As I understand it, those can include functions that the Minister would perform through statutory instruments, under statute, directly or indirectly. This part of the Bill will allow those who undertake the activities to fulfil the Minister's functions or those of his civil servants and will include
employees of, such person … as may be authorised in that behalf by the office-holder or Minister whose function it is.
The functions are legal and go beyond the Minister to the office holder and, in effect, to the contractor. In other words, there will be a cascade of authority—authority to

authorise this, choose that and contract for the other. Those authorised will carry out an administrative function that is largely carried out by named civil servants in Ministries, who are designated by Ministers or Secretaries of State for the purpose.
Civil servants carry much authority. That has arisen since the great reforms of 1906 and the 1920s. At that time there were no appeal tribunals for this, that and the other —social security, pensions and, one hopes, all those independent bodies set up to check civil servants' administrative decisions. In about 1930 a great book was written on the subject by Lord Hewart, entitled "The New Despotism", which illustrated the danger of what we have come to call administrative law. I refer not to statute law but to statutory instruments, which allow Ministers and their named persons to arrive at big decisions—

Mr. Garrett: By royal prerogative.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is right.
Since that time, life has become more complicated and ever more regulations have been issued. The power and effect of these decisions have escalated in line with that complexity.
This Bill extends the process one more stage. Decisions are passed from the Minister to the man in the bowler hat in Whitehall—he may sometimes be despised, although more often than not he is trying to do a good job for the public—and thence to the people who will be the employees of the person to whom these functions are designated.
Clause 59(2) reads:
If a Minister by order so provides, a function to which this section applies may be exercised by, or by employees of, such person (if any) as may be authorised in that behalf by the office-holder or Minister whose function it is.
That jargon represents a cascade of authority which will be given by statutory instrument—yet Conservative Members claim not to like regulations.
Under this Conservative Administration, such regulations will be exercised not just by local authorities, which are at least accountable to the electorate, but by quangos: by vast numbers of quangos. The weekend press pointed out the great dangers in that. There are now more appointees to the quangos that will operate all these regulations than there are elected councillors. The mind boggles to think of the huge numbers of people who, if we give the Bill a Third Reading tonight, will operate whole areas of administrative law which used to be the subject of accountability to the House and to the Select Committees, which can summon civil servants.
Those centres of authority will, I predict, multiply to an extraordinary extent. If that is untrue, let the Minister tell me so. As I read it, clause 59 has that sole purpose in mind. No wonder my hon. Friends, who know a great deal about our public services, have asked the Government merely to consult those who will play a role in the chain of arbitrary administrative authority. The Government should at least listen to them because that might be to their own advantage.
What will be the effect on the public of the decisions made by those who are given this new authority? The Government have had a foretaste of that, in the form of the Child Support Agency—an attempt to save money by imposing arbitrary judicial machinery on human beings who just did not fit it. I suspect that the agency does not even save the Government money.
Why do not the Government understand that this cascade of authority will not bring about what they want? The CSA was a glaring example of what can go wrong. My hon. Friends' amendment asked the Government to consult some of the people in the middle of the chain; my amendment, which I hope the Government will at least consider, goes a step further. Clause 59(3) states:
A Minister shall not make an order under this section in relation to an office-holder without first consulting him.
What about the employees of the office-holder, or the contractor? I therefore want the Government to add the following to the Bill:
and informing those bodies or persons likely in his opinion to be affected by any extension of these functions, and any representative organisation of such bodies or persons as the Minister may consider appropriate".
This is not to say that the Minister has to take any notice of the consultations. He may only say, "We have told you what you are going to do. You've got three months' notice. Prepare yourselves to do it." That of course is consultation at its worst, but consultations can at least enable the Government to do more effectively what they wanted to do in the first place.
We must remember the public, on whom these arbitrary decisions may rain down like confetti. Authoritarian and semi-authoritarian quangos, which the Minister is to set up, will issue more and more regulations.
7.45 pm
I foresee a growth of authoritarianism in this country the like of which we would not have contemplated even five years ago. It will not come in the form of people marching through the streets of east London or anywhere else. It will not come from the House of Lords, with Black Rod marching down and banging on the door. It will come with Ministers slipping into the Chamber while hardly anyone is in there to put through convoluted Bills giving them authority to do heaven knows what. Unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise, that will remain the danger.

Mr. Miller: I want to discuss the effect of this legislation on Government scientific laboratories and on the people who work in them.
It is outrageous that people who work as Government scientists should be expected to take a vow of silence on matters affecting not just their livelihoods—it is only understandable that they would want to discuss the pressures involved—but on the scientific implications of the changes that the Government envisage.
I recently spoke to a scientist from the Medical Research Council about an aspect of his work. He told me he could discuss it only so far and no further. It is quite wrong that a senior scientist, with knowledge of vital interest to all hon. Members about work of great value that he is undertaking on behalf of the Department of Health, should not be allowed to discuss his concerns for the structure of scientific research.
This Bill is being driven through by three Ministers: one of them a lawyer, one a grocer and one a car salesman. I make no comment on those three professions, but I will say that none of the Ministers is a scientist. I repeat that it is outrageous that those who are scientists cannot speak to Members of the House about matters that directly affect them.
At stake in the debate are the interests of the public versus the interests of the private sector. The interests of the public are best served by inquiring into how the research can best be carried out. My hon. Friend the

Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has told the House in some detail about the sort of processes being developed by the Efficiency Unit. The first report by that unit dealing with Government science laboratories covered a host of areas. It gave a list of other areas to look at in the future, but the one question that it did not pose was the basic one of how Great Britain plc should undertake this work in the best interests of its citizens. When science is driven by such ideology, we shall not get results that are in the best interests of our citizens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke about Warren Spring Laboratory and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and I both spoke about the Road Research Laboratory. There is at least some cross-party agreement, although I suspect not by the Minister, about the need to maintain that laboratory in the current structures.
No Opposition Member suggests that such laboratories should stand still for ever and a day and never change. In some cases, incremental change has taken place and laboratories have moved from the public to the private sector in a structured and organised way that was in the best interests of the science that was being undertaken. Perhaps the best example of that is the Camden food research laboratory in Chipping Camden. When that was established just after the first world war, it was wholly Government-owned, but it is now a private sector institution that works in a structured way for about 650 member companies and many Government Departments. That transition took place in a way that was in the interests of the science that was being undertaken.
The Government's approach is driven by an ideology and it is bound to fail the interests of science. As I have said, nobody in the Opposition believes that everything must stand still, but we want changes that are in the best interests of the nation. Against that background, I urge the House to support our amendments.

Dr. Wright: In Committee, we asked the Government to improve the contracting-out part of the Bill to make it more satisfactory in terms of the general scrutiny and accountability to which it relates. We had two main requests. First, we asked the Government to include in the Bill those functions of the state that the Government did not think were appropriate to contract out at all. All previous legislation on contracting out has sought to go down that road and specifically to exclude issues relating to policy matters, strategy matters or matters involving a substantial amount of discretion.
This is an extremely important issue because it turns on what we think the state should properly do. The Minister may say that only a permissive power is being claimed, but that is not an adequate answer to my question. We must have a view of what it is appropriate, even in a permissive sense, to contract out because it goes to the very centre of what we think the public sector is all about. That is a question of some moment, but the Government have refused to contemplate it. The Government are taking to themselves a blanket permissive power.
We tried a second tack. We asked the Government to apply at least the same kind of scrutiny machinery that they propose in chapter 1 of the Bill to the contracting-out procedures that are proposed in this part of the Bill. That would have built in at least some kind of safeguard so that a Committee of the House could determine whether the


powers of contracting out that are being claimed by Ministers were permissible. Again, the Government refused to accept our proposal.
That brings us to our amendments. The Government are being asked to incorporate at least the kind of consultative mechanisms that are enshrined in the procedures relating to chapter 1. It is a modest, tepid demand. It merely asks for consultation to be built into the procedures. The issue is whether this Parliament has now become so supine that it will happily be overruled by the Government yet again and not even be prepared to take on board the notion of building in a consultative procedure. My conclusion, I am sorry to say, is that Parliament is probably so supine and will therefore probably reject this proposition.

Ms Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) spoke of the grave constitutional danger that will be inherent in the Bill of power cascading away from this place almost like confetti if our amendment is not accepted. The danger is that it would not be confetti that would be falling on the heads of the general public, but hail, and because of that it would be extremely dangerous.
My hon. Friends have said that outside bodies in whom the Government seem to place all their trust in terms of saving money for the taxpayer have significantly failed so to do. I understand that £565 million was paid in consultancy fees and that it saved the taxpayer precisely £10 million.
I am still somewhat bemused as to what the Government have in mind by putting these clauses in the Bill. Surely it cannot still be their malicious belief that everything in the public sector is bad and everything in the private sector good. Only today, the OECD published a list of management skills and, of the 22 countries defined, this country is at the bottom. Britain has the worst management skills, but it seems that the Government are rushing to destroy those skills and the public sector which has attracted great admiration throughout the world for the impartiality of the civil servants who engage in delivering policies to the public.
The essential part of any partnership, and that in essence is what we are discussing, is the ability of both sides to consult each other freely and openly. Our amendments would make that possible and would in no way damage what the Government are essentially attempting to do by way of the Bill, nine tenths of which I disagree with.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: A number of detailed points have been made in this interesting debate. I hope to be able to deal with all of them, but if I neglect to do so, I hope that Opposition Members will accept my writing to them and making the correspondence more widely available.
The Government's "Competing for Quality" programme has shown how the introduction of greater competition in the provision of public services has produced better value for money. It is not, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has just said, entirely about saving money. It is also about improving the quality of public services: we do not measure the gains simply in monetary terms.
Some parts of public service have been prevented from seeking these gains by barriers arising from the way in which certain statutes have been framed. The measures in

part II will rectify that by overcoming, subject to essential safeguards, outdated legal restrictions that bear little relation to the needs of today. Clauses 59 and 60 are the mainstays of those provisions.
The obstacle addressed by those clauses is the general presumption in law against delegation of functions conferred by legislation on a Minister, office-holder or local authority.The law already makes exceptions to this presumption for civil servants, the so-called "Carltona" doctrine, local government officers and the staff of many office holders. Clauses 59 and 60 would merely provide for a simple extension of this principle to contractors in appropriate cases. As the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said, that matter was debated extensively, if not exhaustively, in Committee. The clauses would allow for the employment of contractors by Ministers, office-holders or local authorities in carrying out their statutory functions. Of course, before a Minister lays an order, each function will have to be carefully considered on its own merits to determine if it is appropriate for market testing or contracting out at any given time. The issues to be considered include the need for accountability; adequate protection of confidential information; the need, as appropriate, for impartiality; and the effect on the interests of third parties. There are strong safeguards on those points both in the Bill and in existing law.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked why we were promoting amendments Nos. 101 and 102. We recognise that there is a question of constitutional principle in respect of officers of Parliament and judges and their independence of the Executive. In Committee, we moved an amendment that excluded parliamentary officers from the ambit of the Bill and now, as promised, we are tabling a further amendment to mark the constitutional separation of the judges from the Executive. The amendment marks a constitutional principle. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it on that basis.
8 pm
On amendment No. 42, about which the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke extensively, the Government view is that it would be inappropriate to specify a statutory requirement for consultation in the general sense. Departments and staff must have freedom to negotiate appropriate consultation arrangements to the benefit of both. The Government's guide to market testing offers guidance to Departments on that and states that managers should consult staff and their recognised trade union representatives during the market testing of an activity. Trade union sides should be consulted about individual market tests at the start of each test and at appropriate stages during the test. Consultations should allow sufficient time for that to be effective. That guidance and any existing departmental consultation arrangements are not changed by the provisions in the Bill.
The House will wish to know that, in addition, discussions are currently taking place with the Council of Civil Service Unions on an appropriate framework by which departmental and agency discussions on arrangements for consultation on the form that an order takes could be guided.
I now deal with amendment No. 93, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South. All functions would continue to be carried out as required in the relevant enactments. The Bill in no way permits an order made to change the nature of the statutory function that it would


specify. It is misleading, therefore, to suggest that, through the employment of contractors, functions are somehow being extended. The functions remain the same. The only change is that Ministers and office-holders will now have the choice of whether to employ contractors or their own staff to discharge their functions, whereas at present they may employ only their own staff. The Government would remain fully responsible and accountable for the exercise of the function.
There also seems to be an assumption that people will be affected significantly by a change in who delivers the public services and activities. There is no reason to believe that the recipients of services undertaken by contractors would be adversely affected. Indeed, experience to date has shown how increased competition can deliver improvements in service in both quality and value for money.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and also for his reasons for amendments Nos. 101 and 102. Although I agree that the function does not change, he has admitted that the person exercising it does, and that it may be more numerous. Clause 61 provides for a restriction where the liberty of the subject would be affected, but unless the subject is informed, how can any Minister tell that he will not in future be in dire trouble? Would not consultation with the public be a good thing?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) provided the answer to that in his speech. It is a permissive power. Before any particular function is contracted out, there will have to be another debate in Parliament on the specific proposal that might come forward. If there are specific reasons why an individual function should not be contracted out, hon. Members will have the opportunity to advance their arguments.
I disagree with the whole tenor of the speeches of Opposition Members this evening, particularly that of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who spoke of morale in the civil service. I appreciate that, for many civil servants, market testing will change the way in which they do their jobs; some will find themselves with a new employer, and some may lose their jobs, although there is no presumption that that will be the case in any particular market test. Naturally, a change that entails those possibilities will cause anxiety—I fully understand that —but the civil service has no right to a monopoly on the services that it carries out.
In the private sector, the kind of uncertainties that we are talking about tonight have been far exceeded, particularly in recent recessionary times. We are talking about value for money for the taxpayer, and if this policy can achieve it, I believe that it is entirely justified. But, increasingly, civil servants will have to show that they are the best place to deliver a service. If they are providing the most effective service on offer, they will retain the work. It is simply part of the modern world that there can be no assumption of a job for life, whether in the public or, indeed, the private sector.

Mr. McAllion: How can the civil service be given the opportunity to market-test its skills against the private sector when the Government are applying the "prior options" test, which directly privatises or contracts out directly into the private sector without allowing in-house bids? How can those people get a chance to prove that they can do the job better and give better value for money?

Mr. Hamilton: We are talking about contracting out, not privatisation. The hon. Gentleman should reconsider his position, because we are talking about the interests of the taxpayer. We are all taxpayers. We all want to see Government functions carried out efficiently and cost-effectively. All that clauses 59 and 60 will provide us with is the mechanism to achieve that, which I should have thought would unite the House rather than divide it.
On that basis, I invite my hon. Friends to support the Government amendments and resist those of Opposition Members.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 102, in page 51, line 31, at end insert—
'(1A) A function is excluded from this section if its exercise would constitute the exercise of jurisdiction of any of the following, namely—

(a) an appeal or appellate committee of the House of Lords;
(b) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council;
(c) any part of the Supreme Court;
(d) the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary; and
(e) a county court or, in Scotland, a sheriff court.'—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Amendment proposed: No. 42, in page 51, line 36, leave out from
'section' to end of line 37 and insert—

'(a) in relation to any function of a Minister, without first consulting any officer exercising the function on behalf of the Minister and any organisation appearing to the Minister to be representative of such officers, or
(b) in relation to any function of an officer-holder, without first consulting him, any officer exercising the function on his behalf and any organisation appearing to the Minister to be representative of such officers:.—[Mr. Garrett.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 279.

Division No. 253]
[8.05 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cann, Jamie


Ainger, Nick
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Coffey, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Battle, John
Corbett, Robin


Bayley, Hugh
Corston, Ms Jean


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dafis, Cynog


Berry, Roger
Dalyell, Tam


Betts, Clive
Darling, Alistair


Blair, Tony
Davidson, Ian


Blunkett, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dixon, Don


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H.


Byers, Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Richard
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fatchett, Derek






Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maxton, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meacher, Michael


Fyfe, Maria
Meale, Alan


Galloway, George
Michael, Alun


Gapes, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Garrett, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


George, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Miller, Andrew


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morgan, Rhodri


Godsiff, Roger
Morley, Elliot


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mildred
Mowlam, Marjorie


Graham, Thomas
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hanson, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hardy, Peter
Olner, William


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Neill, Martin


Harvey, Nick
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Heppell, John
Patchett, Terry


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pickthall, Colin


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Pope, Greg


Hood, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Keen, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Khabra, Piara S.
Short, Clare


Kilfoyle, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spellar, John


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Stevenson, George


McCartney, Ian
Stott, Roger


Macdonald, Calum
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McFall, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


McLeish, Henry
Vaz, Keith


McMaster, Gordon
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


MacShane, Denis
Wareing, Robert N


McWilliam, John
Watson, Mike


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mahon, Alice
Wilson, Brian


Mandelson, Peter
Winnick, David


Marek, Dr John
Wise, Audrey


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Tony





Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wright, Dr Tony
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Dennis Turner.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Faber, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fabricant, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forth, Eric


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, Sir George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Elletson, Harold
Knapman, Roger


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)






Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trimble, David


Norris, Steve
Trotter, Neville


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Oppenheim, Phillip
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Waterson, Nigel


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Rathbone, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Richards, Rod
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Robathan, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Yeo, Tim


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 71

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 105, in page 59, line 34, leave out from 'Schedule' to end of line 35.

No. 106, in page 59, line 36, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 37.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Schedule 14

REPEALS

Amendments made: No.107, in page 107, leave out lines 6 and 7.

No. 108, in page 110, leave out lines 23 to 25.

No. 109, in page 111, leave out lines 20 and 21.

No. 110, in page 111, leave out lines 33 to 35.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Clause 72

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No.92, in line 18, after '12,' insert
'[Controls onfund-raising for charitable institutions: exclusion of connected companies], '—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

New schedule

Amendment made: No. 1—

'Schedule to be inserted in the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 after Schedule 4

SCHEDULE 4A

RIGHTS OF BETTING WORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY WORKING

General interpretation

1.—(1) In this Schedule, except where a contrary intention appears—
'the 1978 Act' means the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978,
'betting office' means a licensed betting office within the meaning of this Act,
'betting worker' means an employee who, under his contract of employment, is required to work in England and Wales at a track for a bookmaker or totalisator operator or in a betting office on a day on which betting transactions are effected at that track by or on behalf of that bookmaker or totalisator operator or at that betting office,
'bookmaker' has the meaning given in section 55(1) of this Act,
'the commencement date' means the day on which this Schedule comes into force,
'dismissal' has the same meaning as in Part V of the 1978 Act,
'notice period', in relation to an opting-out notice, has the meaning given by paragraph 6 below,
'opted-out', in relation to a betting worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 5 below,
'opting-in notice' has the meaning given by paragraph 3(2) below,
'opting-out notice' has the meaning given by paragraph 4(3) below,
'protected', in relation to a betting worker, shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 below,
'totalisator operator' means the Totalisator Board or any other person authorised to conduct pool betting business within the meaning of this Act,
'track' has the meaning given in section 55(1) of this Act.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the following provisions of the 1978 Act—
section 151(1) and (2) (computation of period of continuous employment), and
section 153 (general interpretation),
shall have effect for the purposes of this Schedule as they have effect for the purposes of that Act.

(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, section 151(2) of the 1978 Act shall have effect with the omission of the words from 'but' onwards and Schedule 13 to that Act shall have effect with the following modifications—



(a) in paragraph 1 for the words 'paragraphs 3 to 12' there shall be substituted 'paragraph 4 or paragraphs 9 to 12',
(b) paragraph 3 and paragraphs 5 to 8 shall be omitted, and
(c) in paragraph 4 the words 'which normally involves employment for sixteen hours or more weekly' shall be omitted.

(4) Where section 56 of the 1978 Act (failure to permit women to return to work after childbirth treated as dismissal) applies to an employee who was employed as a betting worker under her contract of employment on the last day of her maternity leave period, she shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as if she had been employed as a betting worker on the day with effect from which she is treated as dismissed under that section.

Meaning of 'protected betting worker'

2.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 below, a betting worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as 'protected' if, and only if—

(a) on the day before the commencement date, he was employed as a betting worker,
(b) on that day, he was not employed to work only on Sunday,
(c) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with that day and ending with the appropriate date, and
(d) throughout that period, or throughout every part of it during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a betting worker.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) above 'the appropriate date' means—

(a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,
(b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,
(c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 12 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into,
(d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work,
(e) in relation to paragraph 14 below, any time in relation to which the contract is to be enforced, and
(f) in relation to paragraph 15 below, the end of the period in respect of which the remuneration is paid or the benefit accrues.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, 'the effective date of termination', in any case falling within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above—

(a) where an act extends over a period, the "date of the act" means the first day of the period, and
(b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

and in the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.

(5) Where on the day before the commencement date an employee's relations with his employer have ceased to be governed by a contract of employment, he shall be regarded as satisfying the conditions in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) above if—

(a) that day falls in a week which counts as a period of employment with that employer under paragraph 9 or 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (absence from work because of sickness, pregnancy etc.) and
(b) on the last day before the commencement date on which his relations with his employer were

governed by a contract of employment, the employee was a betting worker and was not employed to work only on Sunday.

3.—(1) A betting worker is not a protected betting worker if—

(a) on or after the commencement date, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and
(b) after giving that notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

(2) In this Schedule "opting-in notice" means a written notice, signed and dated by the betting worker, in which the betting worker expressly states that he wishes to work on Sunday or that he does not object to Sunday working.

Notice of objection to Sunday working

4.—(1) This paragraph applies to any betting worker who, under his contract of employment—

(a) is or may be required to work on Sunday (whether or not as a result of previously giving an opting-in notice), but
(b) is not employed to work only on Sunday.

(2) A betting worker to whom this paragraph applies may at any time give his employer written notice, signed and dated by the betting worker, to the effect that the betting worker objects to Sunday working.

(3) In this Schedule 'opting-out notice' means a notice given under sub-paragraph (2) above by a betting worker to whom this paragraph applies.

Meaning of 'opted-out betting worker'

5.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, a betting worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as 'opted-out' if, and only if—

(a) he has given his employer an opting-out notice,
(b) he has been continuously employed during the period beginning with the day on which the notice was given and ending with the appropriate date, and
(c) throughout that period, or throughout every part of it during which his relations with his employer were governed by a contract of employment, he was a betting worker.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above 'the appropriate date' means—

(a) in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 below, the effective date of termination,
(b) in relation to paragraph 10 below, the date of the act or failure to act,
(c) in relation to sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of paragraph 13 below, the day on which the agreement is entered into, and
(d) in relation to sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph, the day on which the employee returns to work.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, 'the effective date of termination', in any case falling within paragraph 1(4) above, means the day with effect from which the employee is treated by section 56 of the 1978 Act as being dismissed.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above—

(a) where an act extends over a period, the 'date of the Act' means the first day of the period, and
(b) a deliberate failure to act shall be treated as done when it was decided on,

and in the absence establishing the contrary, an employer shall be taken to decide on a failure to act when he does an act inconsistent with doing the failed act or, if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act if it was to be done.

(5) A betting worker is not an opted-out betting worker if—

(a) after giving the opting-out notice concerned, he has given his employer an opting-in notice, and
(b) after giving that opting-in notice, he has expressly agreed with his employer to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

Meaning of 'notice period'

6. In this Schedule 'notice period', in relation to an opted-out betting worker, means, subject to paragraph 11(2) below, the period of three months beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given.

Right not be to be dismissed for refusing Sunday work

7.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the dismissal of, a protected or opted-out betting worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the betting worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out betting worker where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal was that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the notice period.

(3) The dismissal of a betting worker by his employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the betting worker gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to the employer.

(4) Section 142 of the 1978 Act (contracts for a fixed term) shall not exclude the application of section 54 of that Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) in relation to any dismissal which is unfair by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) above.

8.—(1) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a protected or opted-out betting worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

(a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and
(b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(1) above,

then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to an opted-out betting worker where the reason (or principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(2) above.

(3) Where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of a betting worker was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

(a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and
(b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in paragraph 7(3) above,

then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.

Exclusion of section 64(1) of Employment Protection(Consolidation) Act 1978

9. Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) shall apply to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8 above regardless of the period for which the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly section 64(1) of that Act (which provides a qualifying period and an upper age limit) shall not apply to such a dismissal.

Right not to suffer detriment for refusing Sunday work

10.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) below, a protected or opted-out betting worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any

deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the betting worker refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to anything done in relation to an opted-out betting worker on the grounds that he refused, or proposed to refuse, to work on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the notice period.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, a betting worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that he gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to his employer.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (3) above do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph a betting worker who does not work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by

(a) any failure to pay remuneration in respect of betting work on a Sunday which he has done.
(b) any failure to provide him with any other benefit, where that failure results from the application, in relation to a Sunday on which the employee has not worked, of a contractual term under which the extent of that benefit varies according to the number of hours worked by the employee or the remuneration of the employee, or
(c) any failure to provide him with any work, remuneration or other benefit which by virtue of paragraph 14 or 15 below the employer is not obliged to provide.

(6) Where an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to any one or more employees who are protected or opted-out betting workers or who, under their contracts of employment, are not obliged to work on Sunday, if they agree to work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday—

(a) and employee to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this paragraph as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to make the offer to him or to pay him that sum, and
(b) an employee who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for those purposes as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay him that sum.

Employer's duty to give explanatory statement

11.—(1) Where a person becomes a betting worker to whom paragraph 4 above applies, his employer shall, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which that person becomes such a betting worker, give him a written statement in the prescribed form.

(2) If—

(a) an employer fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in relation to any betting worker, and
(b) the betting worker, on giving the employer an opting-out notice, becomes an opted-out betting worker,

paragraph 6 above shall have effect, in relation to the betting office worker, with the substitute for 'three months' of 'one month'.

(3) An employer shall not be regarded as failing to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in any case where, before the end of the period referred to in that sub-paragraph, the betting worker has given him an opting-out notice.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the prescribed form is as follows—

'STATUTORY RIGHTS IN RELATION TO SUNDAY BETTING WORK

You have become employed as a betting worker and are or can be required under your contract of employment to do the Sunday work your contract provides for.

However, if you wish, you can give a notice, as described in the next paragraph, to your employer and


you will then have the right not to work on any Sunday once three months have passed from the date on which you gave the notice.

Your notice must—

be in writing;
be signed and dated by you;
say that you object to Sunday working.

for three months after you give the notice, your employer can still require you to do all the Sunday work your contract provides for. After the three month period has ended, you have the right to complain to an industrial tribunal if, because of your refusal to work on Sundays, your employer—

dismisses you, or
does something else detrimental to you, for example, failing to promote you.

Once you have the rights described, you can surrender them only by giving your employer a further notice, signed and dated by you, saying that you wish to work on Sunday or that you do not object to Sunday working and then agreeing with your employer to work on Sundays or on a particular Sunday.'

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the prescribed form set out in sub-paragraph (4) above.

(6) An order under sub-paragraph (5) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Effect of rights on contracts of employment

12.—(1) Any contract of employment under which a betting worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date is unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday on or after the commencement date, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday on or after that date.

(2) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into after the commencement date between a protected betting worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday.

(3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, a protected betting worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 3(1)(b) above (and so ceases to be protected), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.

(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a protected betting worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not a protected betting worker for the purposes of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, is a protected betting worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 of the 1978 Act (maternity).

13.—(1) Where a betting worker gives his employer an opting-out notice, the contract of employment under which he was employed immediately before he gave that notice becomes unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday after the end of the notice period, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday after the end of that period.

(2) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3) below, any agreement entered into between an opted-out betting worker and his employer is unenforceable to the extent that it—

(a) requires the betting worker to work on Sunday after the end of the notice period, or
(b) requires the employer to provide the betting worker with work on Sunday after the end of that period.

(3) Where, after giving an opting-in notice, an opted-out betting worker expressly agrees as mentioned in paragraph 5(5)(b) above (and so ceases to be opted-out), his contract of employment shall be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.

(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to a protected betting worker includes a reference to an employee who, although not a protected betting worker for the purposes of that sub-paragraph at the time when the agreement is entered into, is a protected betting worker on the day on which she returns to work as mentioned in paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (maternity).

14. If—

(a) under the contract of employment under which a betting worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the employer is, or may be, required to provide him with work for a specified number of hours each week,
(b) under that contract, the betting worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday before the commencement date, and
(c) the betting worker has worked on Sunday in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so,

then, so long as the betting worker remains a protected betting worker, that contract shall not be regarded as requiring the employer to provide him with work on weekdays in excess of the hours normally worked by the betting worker on weekdays before he ceased to work on Sunday.

15.—(1) If—

(a) under the contract of employment under which a betting worker who satisfies the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) above was employed on the day before the commencement date, the betting worker was or might have been required to work on Sunday before that date,
(b) the betting worker has worked on Sunday in that employment (whether or not before the commencement date) but has, on or after the commencement date, ceased to do so, and
(c) it is not apparent from the contract what part of the remuneration payable, or of any other benefit accruing, to the betting worker was intended to be attributable to work on Sunday, then, so long as the betting worker remains a protected betting worker, that contract shall be regarded as enabling the employer to reduce the amount of remuneration paid, or the extent of the other benefit provided, to the betting worker in respect of any period by the proportion which the hours of work which (apart from this Schedule) the betting worker could have been required to do on Sunday in the period (in this paragraph referred to as "the contractual Sunday hours") bears to the aggregate of those hours and the hours of work actually done by the betting worker in the period.

(2) Where, under the contract of employment, the hours of work actually done on weekdays in any period would be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours, they shall be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.

Proceedings for contravention of paragraph 10

16. Section 22B and 22C of the 1978 Act (which relate to proceedings brought by an employee on the ground that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 22A of that Act) shall have effect as if the reference in section 22B(1) to section 22A included a reference to paragraph 10 above.

Dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right

17. In section 60A of the 1978 Act (dismissal on grounds of assertion of statutory right), in subsection (4)(a), after sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be inserted "or (iii) Schedule 4A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963".

Conciliation

18. In section 133 of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation offers) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added—
(f) arising Out of a contravention, or alleged contravention, of paragraph 10 of Schedule 4A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963".'—[Mr. Paice.]

New clause

DURATION AND EXPIRY OF CHAPTER 1 OF PART I

'.—(1) Chapter 1 of Part I of this Act shall expire with the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which it came into force unless it is continued in force by an order under subsection (2) below.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide that Chapter 1 of Part I of this Act shall continue in force for a period not exceeding twelve months from the coming into operation of the order.

(3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless—

(a) a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament together with a list of proposals to be made for orders under section 1 of this Act; and
(b) the draft has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Fatchett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos 97 to 100 and No. 24.

Mr. Fatchett: New clause 3 relates to what I consider to be the most important issues in the Bill. In many respects this is a strange Bill. The meat of the sandwich is the deregulatory measures that we have spent considerable time debating, but the outside of the sandwich includes provisions which cause the constitutional concerns on privatising and contracting out civil service functions. The other side of the sandwich relates to the new powers taken under the first four clauses—the so-called Henry VIII powers.
The new clause aims to limit those powers to a five-year period. We consider that to be unsatisfactory and second best. I made our position clear in the debate on the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. We object in principle to any Executive taking powers to repeal primary legislation by order. On that issue, a great divide exists between us and the Government. The new clause does not heal that divide, but in a sense reflects and builds on the current position. Sadly, we have lost the argument on principle.
This is an important constitutional issue and it is sad that fewer hon. Members are present than for debates on Sunday racing and Scottish off licences. The new clause relates closely to the powers of Members of Parliament, which in recent years have been substantially eroded. We should be jealous of our power to make Ministers of any political party accountable to the House. That is the principal point underpinning clauses 1 to 4 and it is reflected in new clause 3.
We oppose in principle the use of order-making powers to repeal primary legislation. Last Wednesday, the Leader of the House said that the Bill contained certain safeguards —that the powers can be used to deal only with what are called deregulatory orders and only in circumstances which satisfy the provisions of the first four clauses. He drew our attention in particular to the need to remove a burden and said that necessary protection should be given.
As members of the Committee who considered the Bill will know, those words have become the golden formula of the Bill. Unfortunately, however, they are not subject to any objective test to verify them and to ensure that the Bill will be used in particular circumstances. They are not scientific, but are the essence of political debate and controversy. It is crucial that we recognise that the mechanism in the first four clauses is dependent not on objectivity but on subjectivity and is therefore open to political debate and controversy.
Hon. Members have expressed different opinions about the nature of the burden of necessary protection in relation to health and safety at work, fire safety provision and continuous licensing for heavy goods vehicles and coaches. Such matters are the stuff of political debate. There is nothing wrong with that, but the stuff of political debate should be dealt with through normal procedures rather than through a mechanism which pretends towards objectivity.
During the debate on the Procedure Committee report, the impression was given that the deregulation process was an ongoing process—that it could last indefinitely or, to put it in objective and more accurate terms, for as long as the Government last. That is a strange intellectual concept. If the Government introduce legislation which does not pass their deregulatory test, something must be wrong with the legislation. The Minister laughs, but it is a crucial point. Why should mechanisms be built in at this stage to deal with failures that are recognised by the Government? That is unacceptable and an incoherent argument.
If the deregulation process is ongoing, the way in which the Government describe it becomes crucial. In Committee, we were told time and again that the proposals were modest and limited and that they would be small in number and limited in scope. If so, why do we need the special new procedures? If we will deal with only a handful of cases each year, many of which cause no controversy —like some of the provisions of the Bill, which were agreed after limited debate and without a Division—why do we need a special procedure? Is not the answer that an annual Deregulation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill can be introduced, which could be dealt with like any other Bill and on which substantial and quick progress could probably be made?
If the deregulation process is not limited in scope, the argument changes. If we are talking about a substantial number of deregulatory initiatives and about extensive deregulation that will bear down heavily on our constituents—consumers or employees—the argument for a special mechanism becomes weaker still because the Government cannot pretend that we are dealing with matter of fact issues. They are issues of substantial importance and they should be dealt with not through a back door process but clearly and openly and, where necessary, by primary legislation.
The nature of the powers suggests that we should not use the mechanisms in the first four clauses. The powers sought by the Government are either so extensive that the


first four clauses become increasingly worrying to those concerned about accountability, or they are not extensive, in which case we do not need them. The Government have never answered that conundrum and paradox in their position. Those powers are a substantial and worrying departure.
In Committee, Conservative Members did not seem to recognise the fact that Governments can change. Opposition Members have experienced that process often enough—and painfully—to know that Governments change and that in a long political cycle there are periods of opposition and periods of government. That being so, there is an even stronger case for saying that we should be conscious of the powers of this Chamber and of those of each Member of Parliament. It is our job, as part of this legislature, to make the Executive accountable.
It is not a question of whether deregulation legislation is introduced by a Conservative or Labour Administration; it is a question of the powers taken by one Executive, which will make Ministers less accountable for their actions. Conservatives should not regard this Bill simply as a Bill introduced by a Conservative Administration; they should regard it as a Bill that could come from any Administration which could then have powers to do things with which they do not agree, whether for ideological or other reasons. The test is what one would feel when in the minority—in opposition. Anyone in opposition would be worried about these new powers being granted to the Executive, and that must always be the test used by Members of Parliament.
8.30 pm
In moving clause 3, I recognise—as we often do—that we are arguing for second best. We are arguing for a measure that I would rather not see on the statute book. I would prefer the Bill to be without the first four clauses, but I am trying to find ways to limit the powers that they contain. Those powers could have been limited by subject—something that we attempted to do in relation to health and safety and other issues—but in this case we are limiting the powers by a period of time. I believe that within five years the deregulation initiative that the Government launched 18 months or so ago will have run its course. The arguments support that, so there is merit in the new clause on practical grounds.
We are debating a key constitutional issue. It is sad that we have been unable to arouse more interest in the Henry VIII powers granted under the first four clauses. When the history of our debates is examined at a later stage—if it ever is—our lack of interest in those powers will seem strange. We should have been much more concerned about the first four clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is something deeply destabilising about following the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) who, if I may say so, made a very conservative speech. I agree with him about the glories of some of our constitutional development. When I was a lad, there was a general and perhaps misconceived idea that one understood the law. We had a general view of the law; it seemed a much smaller thing, more contained and directed towards the objectives of society. We knew, by and large, what was right and what was wrong. We had a feeling for the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) emphasised the sheer burden of the flood of legislation, administrative orders and delegated legislation. It is because of that flood that I no longer have any real feel for the law of the land which affects my conduct or that of my fellow citizens and constituents. One therefore understands the drift behind this Bill. Some Members of all parties believe that the House has over-regulated and over-legislated. We understand the Government's purpose in introducing the Bill but, although the new clauses are ameliorating, they do not alter the Bill's fundamental principle, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said.
The law is no longer a glass through which we look darkly in order to have a concept of the soul and purpose of public society. It is probably now a mirror of a very unsatisfactory human being such as myself who has heard the Minister responsible for deregulation say that when we—the Conservative party—first came into office there were about 300 pages of law per annum but that in 1991 we reached about 3,000 pages. There is no way in which an honourable citizen, mindful of his duties before the law, can have the remotest concept of what that means. We have seen the destructive impact on businesses but the question asked by members of the Opposition Front Bench, and by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in the debate on the Procedure Committee's report, was why the powers are necessary. Why is there not an annual deregulation Bill to meet the challenges that face us? We have not received an answer.
In my time in the House of Commons, which is only—or as much as—15 years, I have reached the stage where I have no idea what the law is or, as often as not, where the balance of importance lies within the clauses that form the law. As I said, I am no longer able to advise my fellow citizens on the generality of where we stand before the law. I have seen the balance shift even further not only to Ministers but to what we call the Executive.
The hon. Member for Newham, South has made very valuable contributions to the argument. In many instances, we are talking about administrative law, which is the right of bureaucrats to make law that profoundly affects our lives. We are now giving them the power to unmake law, which may also profoundly affect our lives. Judgment depends on each instrument—some we shall think important and some we shall think unimportant. In the majority of cases, the House has a consensus. We therefore come back to the question: why can we not have an annual deregulation Bill?
How may I, as a Back Bencher who may not always find favour with the Committee of Selection, ever move an amendment to something which profoundly affects my constituents? There is no provision for amendment of that rule. I cannot put my case on the Floor of the House. By an administrative device, therefore—that is what I think of statutory instruments—we shall be governing England, Scotland and Wales as we have governed Ulster. The government of Ulster is unsatisfactory. I would not wish that fate on my fellow citizens. We should therefore take this issue very seriously. It is incumbent on the Government to consider why they are trying to tilt the balance further in favour of Executive power.
For many years, I have criticised the incessant drumbeat of guillotines. The folly implicit in them is that by driving legislation and regulation through unconsidered we have created the morass that now governs our lives. The Government's solution is to provide a mechanism by


which we may "undrive" it through—if necessary, at a heroic pace. We may indeed unwind, almost at a stroke, many of what I would claim are the benefits of the legislation of the 1980s. An incoming Labour Government might delete some of our most cherished contributions to the development of public society.
In the debate on the Procedure Committee report, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central pledged that the Labour Government would unwind certain features of the Bill. I hope that every hon. Member of spirit will give a cheer. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that a benign Conservative Administration will not use the powers oppressively; I also hope that his own party's Administration—should it ever come about—would also honour that notion.
I now pick up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, although I do not do so in a spirit of contention. A system which enables us to unwind legislation so rapidly shows how quick a thing legislation is. When I first became a Member of Parliament and someone came to argue about a scheme, I would suck on my teeth, draw in my breath and say that the majesty of the law is such that it would take time because society does not move rapidly. What I might have considered a good idea had to be weighed by my peers, fellow Members of Parliament and fellow citizens. All the stages of legislation —Second Reading, Committee stage and Report—enable the public at large to participate in matters which might have profound effects on their lives.
We should be wary of creating a device which allows us simply to make a law today. We all remember the famous Baker Bills which attempted to meet the disasters surrounding us—the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Football Spectators Bill. I am sure that we can all chant the laws that have so improved our lives and removed menaces. If we can so easily incorporate a law and so easily undo it, why are we talking only about 3,000 pages of law per Session? Why not have 6,000 pages of law? After all, what we do on Monday afternoon we can change on Tuesday, and by Thursday we may have yet another view on the matter.
This is the corruption of the majesty of law. If one has no regard or respect for the processes of law or for the instruments that issue forth from it, one undermines civil society. I would argue that one of the corruptions of my adult life is the general contempt in which law is held. I do not know what the law is. When I transgress, I no longer feel it as a transgression. Most of my fellow citizens are increasingly coming to the view that they can disregard the law. That is the crisis on our streets; that is the crisis in our homes.
Yet here we are providing an instrument to make laws on Mondays with guillotines and unmake them on Tuesdays by order after 60 days if they are contentious and after 40 days if they are non-contentious. The balance is shifting too far, not only from the Opposition to the Government but, more importantly to my purpose, from the House of Commons to the Executive. That is why we should punctuate the matter by saying that it is not right.
The ameliorating new clause has merit, but, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said, it is only a second best. The Government are meeting some of the observations made by the Select Committee on Procedure and have improved clause 4, but only marginally. The principle is important and it will not enable me to support the Bill.

Mr. Miller: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). His comments, which were reflected in some of the Committee debates, get to the root of the question. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) developed a similar theme in Committee. There is concern about the integrity of the House of Commons in the context of the Bill.
My remarks go one step further. There is concern outside this place about the integrity of the House of Commons. Some of the things said today, when reported outside, will give members of the public great cause for concern. I listened, for example, to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) who spoke about health and safety legislation and drew parallels with India. It is incredible that we should draw parallels between our regulations and those of a nation in which, in some parts, there are, regrettably, enormous numbers of deaths—way above the number in this country—from industrial accidents, and in which child labour is used.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) referred to getting bureaucrats off the backs of the people. When one analyses what he was saying, one realises that he meant getting bureaucrats off the back of business. It is important that we should consider the Bill in the context of what it seeks to do and that we should not accept the contributions made by Conservative Members tonight in which they have sweepingly suggested that the Bill will liberate the people. It cannot liberate the people when the House of Commons, as an institution, is under threat. The Bill threatens the very roots of our democracy and that is why the new clause is important. It would at least ameliorate the worst excesses of the Bill.
I say with some confidence that a five-year period will not be relevant to the Conservative party because it will not be in power in five years' time. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has referred to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) about the Select Committee on Procedure. We take a serious view of the challenge to our democracy and of the need to protect hon. Members from the excesses of the Executive.
8.45 pm
The integrity of the Government is at stake in the Bill. It is a pity that the Minister for Transport in London is not here on the Front Bench. He did not do himself or the House proud, as reported at column 874 of the Official Report of our proceedings in Committee on 12 April. In response to a point I raised, he said that it was okay for hon. Members to say one thing in the House and another thing in their constituencies. If they believe that that is an acceptable standard, it is an extraordinary position, and it illustrates the depths to which the Government have sunk.

Mr. Spearing: I was not a member of the Committee. My hon. Friend has told me something of considerable significance. First, can he give the reference? Secondly, does he agree that it is not just wrong for a Minister to say that, but wrong for any Member of Parliament, any member of the public and anybody who believes in democracy?

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The reference is column 874 of the Committee proceedings of 12 April. The Minister said:


If my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne has learnt that lesson after only two years in the House, I commend him. It will serve him well in the next 20 or 30 years in which he remains in this place."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 12 April 1994; c. 874.]
Such a comment undermines the integrity of this House. The Bill will be seen by members of the public as a further attempt by the Government to take powers that they have no moral right to take.
The balance between what is a "necessary protection" and what is a burden on business needs some careful definition. Despite numerous attempts in Committee, the Government refused to define the sectors that were incorporated in the phrase "necessary protection". They refused to say which of the many health and safety regulations were covered by the phrase. Is it all of them or none of them? I would be happy if the Minister for Industry could answer that point now. He is listening quietly and I am sure that he will respond in the wind-up.
Unless the Government can define exactly what they mean by "necessary protection", and unless they can be clear about what those words mean in the context of the burden on business, the only example we have is the example given late one night on the Floor of the House by the Under-Secretary of State for Schools. In an Adjournment debate on the Lyme bay tragedy, when my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) argued the case for the regulation of outward bound centres, the Minister responded by saying that that would be a burden on business. That is the only example that the House has had placed before it in the context of the language used in the Bill. Unless the Minister can be absolutely specific—

Mr. Sainsbury: indicated dissent.

Mr. Miller: He is shaking his head. I am looking forward to the intervention and the great list of examples. He is not going to give it, I am sure. Unless the Minister can be absolutely precise, the House needs the protection of the new clause. On that basis, I urge the House, with all sincerity, to take on board the point that has been made. The integrity of the House is at stake. The Minister is now thumbing through a book on red tape, which he will wave around, but he will not find in there any of the lists of regulations governing health and safety to which I have referred and he has yet to give, either in Committee or at any stage, a commitment that any of them will be incorporated. In fact, the only example that we have is of exactly the opposite. Whom do we trust? Whom do the people outside trust? We cannot trust this Administration on this point or on the Bill, so I urge the House to support the new clause.

Mr. Gary Waller: Until the final words of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), I was going to say that I supported the consensus that seems to have developed during the debate. I should certainly like to congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on the carefully argued and moderate way in which he advanced his case. There was little in his speech with which I could possibly disagree.
Like my hon. Friends, I warmly welcome the deregulation initiative. It is the motor that underpins the Bill and it is entirely welcome. However, that objective is not in itself sufficient to justify any means that may be used

to support it. The new clause would set a time limit to the exercise by Ministers of the so-called Henry VIII clauses. In fact, it is somewhat misleading to describe them in that way. Certainly, a Parliament was asked to give Henry VIII powers to rule by proclamation that were much more untrammelled than anything in this context. Nevertheless, one adopts a time-honoured convention by describing such powers under that all-embracing title.
Such a provision, defined as one that enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation, with or without further parliamentary scrutiny, is not, of course, entirely new. Nevertheless, I suggest that such a provision has never been advanced in such a way before, even though the exercise of Henry VIII powers has been considered by Parliament on previous occasions. The committee on ministers' powers, otherwise known as the Donoughmore committee, considered that matter when it reported in 1932. It noted that the powers had been rarely used and that they had been used with the best possible motives. I am sure that, today, they are being advanced with the best possible motives again.
However, the committee also stated that the exercise of the power had not, in practice, given ground for complaint. That is an interesting observation and it may well be that there will be few complaints about the way in which the power may be exercised in future. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that the complaints may be extremely great and that they will worry us a great deal in future.
The committee stated:
The power has been asked for and granted but rarely and always subject to conditions limiting the period of its operation … Even with safeguards … it is clearly a power which in theory at any rate may be unscrupulously used.
It is not short-sighted to consider the theoretical way in which such powers may be used and one should not be assuaged by assurances about the benevolent motives that underpin them in practice.
A case has been advanced over the years for clauses such as this to be used in certain rather more limited ways. Indeed, their use has become increasingly common over the years. It has been recognised that there is a case for the powers to be used, for example, updating lists of threatened species in a schedule of protected wildlife, for upgrading monetary figures to take account of inflation or in respect of consequential and traditional provisions. However, here we will be giving power to amend any other Act of Parliament in the past or in future. I suggest that a general power to create or amend the law, even with limitations, is a power that should give us, as parliamentarians, pause for thought. We should at the very least set a time limit on its application.
As I initially said, the motives that underpin the provision are entirely honourable. Indeed, they are worthy of support. However, means should surely not justify ends and we should as parliamentarians always consider such means. In the past, constitutionalists have clearly made the point that such a power should not be used simply for convenience. Yet, as has already been clearly shown in the debate, there are alternative ways in which to achieve the Government's ends. It just so happens that this appears to be a rather convenient way in which to do it. It is a great mistake to rely on good intentions and those who have in the past relied on good intentions have often subsequently rued their words and their decisions.
I am also concerned because of the precedent that we are setting. It was something to which my right hon. Friend


Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a former Law Officer, referred in the other place, in a debate on what became the Children Act. He said:
If we pass this measure, it will be used as a precedent in other measures."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 1989; Vol. 503, c. 1362.]
I believe that those concerns were reasonable.
The concern here is that the powers that are implemented in the Bill could be used by future Governments in a way that we cannot foresee today. Looking further than that, there is also the possibility that a future Government could use this kind of provision as a precedent for yet further inroads into parliamentary democracy. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, Central say that that was not the intention of his party and that it rejected that kind of approach to legislation.
It is a fact that most of the changes that are set out in the Bill do not cause too many concerns, even among organisations that are not favourably disposed towards the Government. There is concern, however, because of the perceived threat of undefined and indeterminate changes in future. That is the factor that causes anxiety. As has been said, there is no power to amend statutory instruments. That worries me. I accept that, in devising a special procedure, the Government have tried hard to overcome the objections to which I have referred. At the end of the day, however, it is the Government who will take the decision. There will be no power to amend the legislation that comes forward to replace legislation that has been repealed.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position is even worse than that? However long the committee may sit and however many questions it may ask, constitutionally, its opinion will be only advisory and in terms of the orders of the House.

Mr. Waller: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It has been suggested, of course, that the Government would listen carefully to the opinions of the committee and that they would be extremely unlikely to reject the committee's considered views, but that is not good enough for me. I must reject the placing of untrammelled power into the hands of Ministers, of any Government.
9 pm
I agree that the conclusions of the Donoughmore committee all those years ago were restrictive. Indeed, they were too restrictive in their application to Ministers. I support its view, however, that a clause of the sort that is proposed should be time limited. The committee concluded:
The clause"—
a Henry VIII clause—
should always contain a maximum time limit of one year after which the powers should lapse. If in the event the time limit proves too short—which is unlikely—the Government should then come back to Parliament with a one clause Bill to extend it.
That seems to be close to the provision that is encompassed in the new clause. I agree, too, that the subjectivity of tests using words such as "protection" and "burdens" is objectionable.
I wish that I were able to give my full support to the Government in this instance. I have read carefully the report of the proceedings in Committee. I was anxious, if possible, to find a way in which I could support the Government, but I read in vain. I rarely oppose the

Government on other issues and I hope that that very fact will in itself demonstrate the depth of my concern in relation to this one. I am sorry that there are few Members in the Chamber because when I have spoken to my colleagues I have found that many of them do not fully appreciate the effect of the provisions in the first part of the Bill. I believe that tonight there has been a general consensus on the matter. With regret, I find that there is no way that I am unable to support the new clause.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Throughout our debates, I have had the uneasy feeling that there is something almost unconstitutional about the first four clauses. Yet, here we are debating the Bill, and we are part of the constitution. The four clauses have been described as Henry VIII clauses, and we know that Henry VIII was an arbitrary dictator fond of cutting off people's heads and of ruling by decree. The clauses have caused some of us to believe that we are being asked to act unconstitutionally. It might be better to describe the first four clauses as Charles I clauses. It is almost as if the king is trying to cut off his own head.
I know that that would be rather difficult, but it seems that Parliament is trying to cut its powers to decide what is or is not best in the public interest. I do not believe that, constitutionally, a Parliament can decide to act not in the public interest but in the interests—this has been clear throughout our consideration of the Bill—of one element of the public, financial business.
Earlier today, the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) referred to a small care home for the elderly. He said that it was unfair for that business man, as he tried so hard to make money, with sweat pouring down his brow, to have the burden of complying with certain staffing regulations. I could not help thinking of the residents of that care home and to whom they could go, other than to their Member of Parliament, if they felt that they were not receiving adequate care.
If the interests are balanced out, I must inevitably come down on the side of the residents of that home in respect of the legislation that we may pass on their behalf rather than on the side of the efforts, which I accept may be genuine, of the person trying to make money by running that care home and that person's ability or otherwise to make that money.
I agree with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that legislation requires a continuous process of simplification. Regulations need amending as time moves on and we must find a way to achieve that. However, the Bill is not couched in such terms. The Bill prevents regulations from being amended in such a way that they may become more onerous on business. If new research on safety or the environment means that regulations have to be amended to protect the public more securely, the Bill precludes us in Parliament, and Ministers, from doing that. Parliament can act only in a way that makes legislation less onerous to business.
My final point should be challenged in a wider debate and I believe that that will happen over the next few weeks. I do not accept, and I do not believe that most Conservative Members accept, that the key element that holds back the profitability of British industry is the minor bureaucratic regulations with which industry must comply. The manufacturing sector in Sheffield does not cite that as the main reason for its problems in stimulating British industry and manufacturing. The Government have not introduced


the Bill to solve that problem. The Government are abrogating responsibility, which I believe has rested quite correctly with Parliament for many hundreds of years.

Dr. Wright: At the tail end of debate on such a large Bill, it is difficult, particularly for those of us who have been associated with it in Committee, to remember the anger and outrage that we felt when the Bill first appeared. However, we should remember that if we are to obtain a measure of the enormity of what is being proposed and what Parliament is being asked to approve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) put it very nicely just now. She said that from the very moment Bill was first suggested, when it was a gleam in ministerial eyes, it had a nasty smell about it. The Government knew that and they knew that they had to build in a procedure so that Parliament could be persuaded that it would be all right. That process has been undertaken and we have reached that moment. However, we should remember that there are two crucial issues.
The first issue is that the Government are claiming a general order-making power, and the right to make legislation by order, of a kind that no Government have hitherto claimed. That is simply a matter of fact. We speak about Henry VIII clauses and it is quite true, as Conservative Members have said, that everyone who has considered those, from the Donoughmore committee in the 1930s right through to the recent Hansard study of the legislative process, has said that those are inherently undesirable clauses which should not be in Bills; they are only there for transitional purposes, consequential purposes and updating purposes. They should be at the margin, and they should stay there.
The Government are now saying that that is not the way in which they would like to proceed. They want to proceed by claiming for themselves a general power to legislate by order. The first question becomes, "Is Parliament willing to grant that power to Ministers?" That is the crucial question. It is being asked now by the Labour party of the Government, but it could be being asked the other way round. It is a question for Parliament. It is a question about our political and constitutional system, and Parliament must answer it tonight.
The second issue is that of the mechanism that the Government have offered Parliament to make the process all right—the scrutiny Committees. The Procedure Committee was sent away to examine that proposal and to come forward with a device. It has done so, but Parliament ought to understand what has happened before it votes this evening. I understand that there was largely non-cooperation from Labour members of the Procedure Committee as a result of their disapproval of the entire process, so the Committee was dominated by the Government.
The Procedure Committee made a set of proposals. It essentially said, "We are not satisfied with the safeguards that the Government are offering the House in relation to this claimed power" and it listed five essential safeguards that it wanted before it was prepared to give its imprimatur to the Government's proposals. Two of those safeguards have not been met. When I mentioned it to the Chairman of the Committee, he seemed surprised. I shall never forget

the look of surprise on his face when he asked the Leader of the House, "Can this be true?"—and of course it is true that two of those safeguards have not been met.
One safeguard relates to the ability of the Committee, and therefore the House, to summon Ministers; a very important power. However, the key safeguard, the fundamental safeguard, is for a Committee of the House —the suggested scrutiny Committee, remember—a Committee with a Government majority, chaired by a member of the Government party, to claim the right to say whether it is appropriate to use the order-making power in relation to the proposals that the Government are making. That is the crucial issue. Is it appropriate to proceed by using order-making powers instead of primary legislation in relation to this proposal? That is the key issue for the Procedure Committee.
What do the Government say? I would ask all hon. Members, before they vote tonight, to read what the Government say. They essentially say, "We are interested in what you say; we shall take it"—the phrase is, "with the utmost seriousness"—"but we shall not accept it." There we have it. When the Procedure Committee reported, there were people around and outside who said, "This is a sensible report; the safeguards seem sensible; I am sure that we can go ahead on that basis." Some of us did not think so; nevertheless, that was what was said. The reality is that the Government have not accepted those proposals.
So what will happen tonight? This Parliament will give Ministers a general order-making power, and it will do so in a context in which the Government have not even been prepared to accept the safeguards of the House's own Procedure Committee. That is the issue. It is not for nothing that those powers are called Henry VIII powers, because if there is one golden, malevolent thread running through our constitution, it is the transfer of prerogative powers from the Crown, not to the House, not to Parliament, but to the Executive. That is the issue for us. It is revealing that a Government should have the arrogance to ask for such powers. It would be even more revealing if a Parliament—this Parliament—agreed to grant Ministers those powers.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) put forward his new clause as a constitutional issue. He argued in measured terms against the order-making power, saying that his argument was on principle. However, in so doing, he brushed aside the safeguards in the Bill and largely ignored the careful work of the Procedure Committee. He revealed the underlying reason for his new clause. He has no interest, and nor do his hon. Friends, in lifting burdens from business, charities or individuals.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central asked why the order-making powers were needed. They are needed to facilitate the timely removal or reduction of burdens in primary legislation. This need will still exist in five, 10 or 15 years' time. What may not appear to be a burden now may become a substantial problem in the future. Markets, technologies—a whole range of circumstances—will change the nature of business in years to come. We need an effective mechanism to deal with those burdens, both now and in the future. For those reasons, we do not consider that any time limit is appropriate.
The new clause would undermine our objective in seeking the powers in clause 1. We have a rolling programme which will identify many more measures which would remove or reduce bureaucratic burdens without removing necessary protection, and would therefore be suitable candidates for use of the order-making power.
Moreover, circumstances change so that legislation that is necessary now may in the future no longer be needed to provide protection. We have seen how new technology can offer ways of providing legislative protection that are less burdensome. Computers have already led to substantial changes in record-keeping requirements.
Technological developments are bound to continue. For example, the further development of smart cards may mean that all sorts of detailed legislative requirements could become outdated. We, therefore, want a power to amend existing primary legislation to be available into the future. We see no need to limit the availability of the power. It should be available for any future Government to pursue the lifting of burdens without removing necessary protection.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend has not answered the question why an annual deregulation Bill or series of deregulation Bills could not meet the point. That would enable us to amend provisions that might be contentious. No one in the House disputes his canter round technological advances and the changing nature of society. We are agreed on that. That argument is almost redundant. We want to know why it is necessary for the Government to have extraordinary powers which contradict our constitution instead of a proper approach to the matter.

Mr. Sainsbury: First, I do not think that the powers are so extraordinary. Secondly, there are substantial safeguards. Thirdly, the very thing that my hon. Friend asks for would demand more legislative time. That is the problem that we are addressing.
The power in clause 1, which worries my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller), applies only to Acts currently on the statute book and those passed in the current Session. It is not untrammelled. There are limits on the use of the power in the Bill. We should also bear in mind the stringent safeguards and constraints on the use of the power included in the unique arrangements for scrutiny by special Committees. That scrutiny would be followed by the affirmative resolution procedure, which requires the positive approval of each House. Therefore, it would be debated in this House and no additional purpose could be served by some annual review of all the uses to which the power was to be put in the following year, or by requiring the power to be reviewed by the affirmative resolution every year.
Amendment No. 24 gives effect to an undertaking that we gave in the Standing Committee on 24 February, at column 232. It also follows up a recommendation made by the Procedure Committee during its inquiry. It would require a Minister bringing forward a proposal under the order-making power to report back to the House following a special scrutiny period, giving details of any further representation made during that period, subject to protection for information given in confidence, as well as any report or resolution of either House or their Committees. The statement would have to give details of

any changes made to the proposals or as a result of such representations, resolutions or reports during the scrutiny period.
On amendments Nos. 97 to 100, my right hon. Friend the Lord President made clear during our debate on the Procedure Committee's helpful report that we have given very careful consideration to the views of the Procedure Committee. The Committee reached the view that, in a small minority of cases, the scrutiny period of 40 days provided by clause 4 would not be sufficient to allow the deregulation Committee to complete a proper scrutiny inquiry. The amendments give effect to the Committee's recommendations that, in such cases, the period for scrutiny should be extended to 60 days.
The Procedure Committee in another place has now also undertaken an inquiry into the arrangements for scrutinising deregulation orders. The Government will, of course, take careful account of the outcome of that inquiry and will propose any further amendments to the Bill that appear necessary in the light of it.
I, therefore, commend amendments Nos. 24 and 97 to 100 to the House and urge hon. Members to reject new clause 3.

Mr. Fatchett: I fear that there has been no meeting of minds on this issue during the debate; the same was true during the Standing Committee proceedings. The Opposition—and the hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—see the issue as one of principle. The Minister regards it as a practical issue, and does not see beyond the means. We are concerned about the means and the ends, and also about the way in which the powers taken will subvert the role of this Chamber and of Members of Parliament, and will make the Executive less accountable.
That is the argument which we have made throughout. It has been a principled argument. It is, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, a Conservative constitutional argument. I am not embarrassed by that, as sometimes the very simple constitutional principle of making the Executive accountable is worth defending and justifying. That has been the principal difference, and the Minister has failed to understand those principles and our concern about them. I was disappointed by the nature of his reply, but I was not surprised. Throughout, he has seen the matter as being totally practical.
I repeat the commitment given earlier: no incoming Labour Government will use the powers, because I think that the powers are an abuse of the House of Commons and give too much power to the Executive. For that reason, I ask my hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby and to support new clause 3.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 275.

Division No. 254]
[9.22 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Allen, Graham
Bayley, Hugh


Alton, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bell, Stuart


Armstrong, Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joe
Benton, Joe


Austin-Walker, John
Bermingham, Gerald






Berry, Roger
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Betts, Clive
Heppell, John


Blair, Tony
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Blunkett, David
Hinchliffe, David


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Burden, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Byers, Stephen
Hutton, John


Caborn, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Callaghan, Jim
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jamieson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Janner, Greville


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Keen, Alan


Clelland, David
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Khabra, Piara S.


Coffey, Ann
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lewis, Terry


Corbett, Robin
Litherland, Robert


Corston, Ms Jean
Livingstone, Ken


Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dafis, Cynog
McAllion, John


Dalyell, Tam
McAvoy, Thomas


Darling, Alistair
McCartney, Ian


Davidson, Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McFall, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McLeish, Henry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McMaster, Gordon


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Don
MacShane, Denis


Donohoe, Brian H.
McWilliam, John


Dowd, Jim
Madden, Max


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Alice


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mandelson, Peter


Enright, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Fyfe, Maria
Milburn, Alan


Galloway, George
Miller, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Garrett, John
Morgan, Rhodri


George, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Gerrard, Neil
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mudie, George


Godsiff, Roger
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Paul


Gordon, Mildred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Graham, Thomas
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Hara, Edward


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Olner, William


Gunnell, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hall, Mike
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hanson, David
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pickthall, Colin


Harvey, Nick
Pike, Peter L.





Pope, Greg
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Spellar, John


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prescott, John
Stevenson, George


Primarolo, Dawn
Stott, Roger


Purchase, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Randall, Stuart
Turner, Dennis


Raynsford, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Reid, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Waller, Gary


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wareing, Robert N


Rogers, Allan
Watson, Mike


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Wilson, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Audrey


Short, Clare
Worthington, Tony


Simpson, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Alan Meale.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cran, James


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Bellingham, Henry
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Duncan, Alan


Body, Sir Richard
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Booth, Hartley
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boswell, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Evennett, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Burns, Simon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carttiss, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Cash, William
French, Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fry, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Gale, Roger


Churchill, Mr
Gallie, Phil


Clappison, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Garnier, Edward






Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Jeremy
Ottaway, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Paice, James


Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heald, Oliver
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hendry, Charles
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hicks, Robert
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Riddick, Graham


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Robathan, Andrew


Horam, John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Sims, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Soames, Nicholas


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Speed, Sir Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Key, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spink, Dr Robert


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spring, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Steen, Anthony


Knox, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stern, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stewart, Allan


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Streeter, Gary


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sumberg, David


Legg, Barry
Sweeney, Walter


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sykes, John


Lidington, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lord, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Luff, Peter
Thomason, Roy


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mans, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marlow, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trend, Michael


Mates, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Merchant, Piers
Vaughan, Sir Gerard





Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

PARLIAMENTARY CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS

Amendments made: No. 97, in page 4, line 40, after `means' insert '(a)'.

No. 98, in page 4, line 41, leave out 'is' and insert 'was'.

No. 99, in page 4, line 41, at end insert
'or
(b) if within the period referred to in paragraph (a) above a committee of either House reports that there are special reasons why it will be unable to complete its consideration of the document before the end of that period, the period of sixty days beginning on the day on which the document was so laid.'

No. 100, in page 4, line 42, leave out 'period of forty' and insert
'periods of forty and sixty'.

No. 24, in page 5, line 6, at end insert—
'(5) Together with a draft of an order laid before Parliament under section 1(4) above, the Minister concerned shall lay a statement giving details of—

(a) any representations, resolution or report falling within subsection (4) above; and
(b) the changes (if any) which, in the light of any such representations, resolution or report, the Minister has made to his proposals as contained in the document previously laid before Parliament under section 3(3) above.

(6) Subsection (5) of section 3 above shall apply in relation to the representations referred to in subsection (5)(a) above as it applies in relation to the representations referred to in subsection (4)(f) of that section.'—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Spearing: For once, the Bill is an instrument that means what it says. Chapter I is a deregulation measure which is of disreputable constitutional origin and operation and part II deals with contracting out. Chapter I provides more power for the Executive and part II gives more power to the executives of the Executive. The Bill thus takes power from Parliament and transfers it to the prerogative of the Crown from which this place was formed to protect the people.
The Bill is one of the worst power-centralising measures that one can imagine. When the Government go to the country they claim that they are a decentralising force. Time and again, not only on the election box but even in the House, Ministers speak about decentralisation of power. But the Minister cannot claim that the Bill is anything other than an instrument for a great centralising of power to the Executive, especially in the context of clause 4.
People have said that clause 4 introduces the possibility of Henry VIII clauses which have been constitutionally dodgy because they give a Minister power to do anything —in emergencies, the Government claim—that he thinks necessary within the purposes of an Act. But clause 4 will


allow any Minister to present a statutory instrument not just in the context of one Act but in the context of any Act named in the schedule to that instrument. That schedule could list five, 10 or 20 Acts—the number is unlimited.
Furthermore, in claiming to provide safeguards, the Government do not even accept the recommendations of the Committee that advised on them. They responded to the Select Committee as if that Committee was reporting to the Government rather than to the House. That betrays their arrogant attitude to Parliament and its Members and therefore to the public.
In taking powers to themselves the Government are taking power away not just from Parliament but from the people who sent us here. It is no wonder, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said at the weekend, that voters are going on strike. The Government's maladministration and poor-quality legislation have brought that to pass.
In part I of the Bill, the Government are creating a new internal monarchy, which is a liaison between the garagistes, the quangoists and the superistes, the big business men, or the big people of capital, who are gaining power through their Government—a Government who do not have the guts to publish their accounts. If they do not do that, how do we know that the deregulation that will come from a Deregulation Panel that is stuffed full of people who are there for big business is not a closed circuit of finance and statutory power? Something new this century is going through the House without people understanding what is going on in chapter I.
Part II of the Bill is the opposite but constitutes an equally wrong and undemocratic process. Having done something to take the burdens away from more than one half of the country, the Government then impose new executive powers on people who cannot protect themselves. Part I does not provide a balance between burdens and human liberty. Oh, no: it is solely on one side of the political spectrum. And so, of course, is part II, because in its cascade of deregulatory power, it gives power to executives and quangos—people empowered by Ministers to exercise arbitrary power on their part, and, worse still, over their employees and contractors. In other words, it gives them powers that cannot be caught up with by Ministers—even if that were their wish—still less by hon. Members.
The disrepute into which the House and the Government who use these powers in future will fall will be great indeed. We ain't seen nothing yet in terms of the way in which the public look on politicians and powers. I see the Minister smiling at that. I do not find this a smiling matter at all. It is something that he will come to rue. Perhaps, in ignorance, he is taking the Bill through rather than resigning, because if he knew what was to come—or would come if the Government lasted—he would not be smiling at all.
We have here a new crown, but one which is hidden and which takes away powers from the House, from Conservative Members who are chatting and from the people who sent them here, not to vote for the Bill but to vote against the acquisition of executive power by officials in Whitehall. Years ago, members of the Conservative party used to talk about the men in bowler hats coming to tell people what to do. In part II of the Bill, lots of posts are

created, but those in them are not necessarily visible in bowler hats. They will be going through the law courts and the quangos. They will be tying local government in knots so that it cannot do what it wants to do. That is the purpose of part II.
What we have in the Bill—today of all days, when a certain manifesto was published—is what some of us would call "the enemy without" in terms of democracy and self-government of the country. I tell the Government that they are now creating a new crown and a new enemy within.

Dr. Wright: I think that there could have been consensus on the Bill. Indeed, I think that, in Committee, the spirit of my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), was a spirit of consensus. It would have been possible to build an alliance around sensible deregulation. There can be overregulation. There can be under-regulation. There can be silly regulation. There can be sensible regulation. There could have been a partnership and a coalition in terms of removing unnecessary and burdensome regulations but maintaining proper protections. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the Government have chosen to proceed, that has not been possible. We have had to remind the Government consistently, as have some Conservative Members, that the source of much of the burden comes from their own legislation. It is worth pointing out, even at this late stage, that on average the present Government have produced 500 pages more in statutory instruments and public Acts than the last Labour Government—500 pages in terms of each, that is. Unfortunately, the Government have chosen to act in an improper and outrageous constitutional fashion, and that is the issue that is now at stake. The consensus has been broken, because the Government have claimed unlimited powers.
At one time, the Conservative party was the great custodian of what used to be called limited government. Now, in approving the Bill, it is becoming the custodian of unlimited government. In the 18th century, a great motion was passed; it is known as Dunning's motion:
The power of the Executive has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
That is the kind of motion that the House should now be passing, rather than this contemptible Bill.

Mr. Fatchett: The Opposition voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and nothing has happened in Committee or on Report to change our mind and show that our initial decision was incorrect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) has said, we have always favoured sensible deregulation: there was always a basis for potential consensus there. I have not met an hon. Member who is in favour of unnecessary regulation and unnecessary burdens. We object to the Bill on two basic grounds.
I share the concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock and Burntwood and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and that of all my colleagues who served on the Standing Committee, about the constitutional innovations in the Bill. We have just debated the Henry VIII powers, and I was delighted to observe some Conservative Members speaking and voting against the Government on that issue. Those executive powers, and the debate


surrounding them, will not go away; they will remain an important feature of discussion of the Bill. Sadly, however, we have spent less time on another constitutional issue of equal importance.
The Government's ideological commitment to privatisation, market testing and contracting out obscures from them the real constitutional issues that underpin part II of the Bill. Again, we are discussing ministerial accountability. During my years as a member of the Opposition, I have seen an erosion of such accountability and of the powers of Members of Parliament. These are important issues—to me as a Member of Parliament, but also to my constituents and those of other hon. Members.
Nowadays, we write to Ministers and receive replies from civil servants or agencies—people who cannot be made accountable at the Dispatch Box. There has been a change in constitutional principles: certain civil servants, acting as chief executives on behalf of agencies or quangos, feel that they can enter into party political debate and controversy. That is a novel and dangerous departure in terms of the role of the civil service, and the Bill exacerbates the process.
That process was taken to its extreme in the run-up to the last general election, when Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the national health service, intervened directly to say that the Government's NHS reforms were working and Labour's policies would not work. It is dangerous for a civil servant to intervene in that way, because the line between administration and policy-making becomes extremely blurred. Let me say to all Conservative Members that we need to ensure that Ministers are the ones held accountable to the House of Commons, and that it is they who justify the decisions made in their name.
Time and again we ask questions, write letters and try to act on behalf of our constituents, only to find that the person who answers our letters is not the Minister but some civil servant or agency—or, in the future, some private sector employer. That is an argument not against the private sector but in favour of an impartial civil service, an impartial Administration and ministerial accountability. That is why we have been concerned throughout not only about the constitutional powers of the first four clauses but about the constitutional powers under part II.
Even at this late stage, I urge Conservative Members to think about the principles and the precedent that is being set, because they may come to regret the way in which they may be used.
We must be jealous of our powers. We must work to preserve and to safeguard them, but the Bill is designed to undermine them. We voted against the Bill on. Second Reading, and our reasoned amendment clearly explained why we did so.
Little or nothing was changed in Committee. The Procedure Committee's report suggested how the scrutiny mechanism will apply to the first four clauses. My hon. Friends have argued powerfully and cogently that the Government did not even have the decency to accept the Procedure Committee's recommendations. Without that, the safeguards are limited, but we argue that it is impossible to safeguard against an unsafe principle.
A philosophy underpinned the Bill—a philosophy of deregulation. We know that it began at the Conservative party conference in 1992 when, in those immortal words, the Prime Minister said to the President of the Board of

Trade, "Michael, get out your axe". He would not dare use those words today because they might have a different meaning.
We all recognise the need to get rid of unnecessary regulation. We know where the burden of that regulation has come from during the lifetime of this Government. As we said in Committee, and as those who read and participated in the Second Reading debate will know, an ideology underpins the Bill and it goes beyond getting rid of unnecessary burdens. Some Conservative Members strongly believe in a totally deregulated labour market and see that as Britain's future industrial policy. They want a labour market that provides not security but insecurity, and competition between individuals on the basis not of talents but of a willingness to take a job at the lowest possible wage, with the lowest possible protection. That is why it has been argued that there has been too great a shift in emphasis to employees, consumers and the general public. We do not accept those arguments—that is the distinctive ideological division between the Opposition and the Government.
We do not accept an industrial strategy and policy that is based on deregulation and that sees Britain pricing itself at the bottom end of the market. There is no future in such a perspective. It means that Britain has to push down its real wages to compete with South Korea, Taiwan and China. That should not be the future for a country that has a Government and people of ambition. We should be trying to compete on quality, skills and research and development and looking forward to the time when Britain has a quality market in the world. That is not the object of the Government's deregulation initiative and we reject their ideology. The Bill damages our constitution, and the industrial policy that it proposes is Victorian and outdated. Before too long, and with this Government, that policy and ideology will die. We reject the Bill.

Mr. Sainsbury: The Bill is an important contribution to reducing burdens on industry and especially on small companies. It will help to improve the competitiveness of our economy, reduce unnecessary burdens on charities and individuals and remove important statutory obstacles to contracting out. We heard nothing about those matters from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) or from his colleagues. We heard nothing on that subject from the Liberal Democrats—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Indeed, we heard nothing from the Liberal Democrat Benches during these important proceedings because they have been empty, which may say something about that party's attitude to deregulation and the importance of small businesses.
What we have heard from the Opposition is a parody of what is in the Bill. We have heard smears, threats, rumours and allegations about things which they say might be done but which will not be done. The Bill provides an order-making power to allow the amendment or repeal of outdated or unnecessarily burdensome legislation. For the first time, this mechanism will allow us to make useful deregulatory changes to particular legislation to reduce costs to business and others without having to wait for a place in the legislative programme.
The power is subject to substantial safeguards and constraints to ensure that it cannot be abused—another point ignored by the Opposition. It can be used only if the


necessary protection is not removed. Consultation is required with those likely to be substantially affected, and detailed scrutiny will be possible by special parliamentary Committees.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me but there is not time.
The consultation required and the opportunity for special scrutiny Committees to take evidence means that any deregulation proposal may well receive more detailed consideration, inside and outside the House under the provisions of the Bill, than if it were introduced as a proposal for primary legislation.
The Opposition may not think that modest legislative changes are important, but saving millions of pounds for business by removing unnecessary legislation is something that we regard as important, as my hon. Friends have made clear. Even small savings for business will, cumulatively, make a real difference. We are determined that the competitiveness of our firms should not be unnecessarily impeded.
The Opposition claim that they are in favour of deregulation but their record and their continuing opposition to the Bill make a mockery of that claim. They always have been, and clearly remain, believers in bureaucracy.
The Bill contains a number of specific deregulation measures, such as the streamlining of some of the procedures of competition law and a reduction in the paperwork required for waste transfers. We have also agreed to new clauses relating to charities.
The removal of obstacles to the contracting out of statutory functions will facilitate the process of public sector reform. The Government's . "Competing for Quality" programme has already shown how the introduction of greater competition in the provision of public services can result in substantial value-for-money gains. The citizens charter second report itemises savings of no less than £135 million from the programme, which can be expected to be made each year. However, some parts of the public service have until now been prevented from seeking those gains by barriers arising from the way in which certain statutes have been framed. The measures in part II, so derided by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will rectify that by overcoming—subject to essential safeguards—outdated legal restrictions that bear little relation to the needs of today. Accountability to Parliament will remain unchanged, and safeguards are provided to ensure that confidential information is protected.
Parts I and II of the Bill are centred on our belief in competition. This Bill and the wider deregulation initiative will make an important contribution to our unremitting drive to improve Britain's competitiveness. Of course, our competitiveness depends on many factors but the one that is especially important for smaller businesses is the lifting of the burden of unnecessary regulation. The Opposition's approach betrays just how little importance they attach to that.
The competitiveness of our businesses is vital to our standard of living and our quality of life. As my hon.

Friends have said, today and in earlier debates, coping with unnecessary burdens affects the competitiveness of our businesses and costs jobs. We will continue to strive for ever greater competitiveness. Our White Paper will be published tomorrow, setting out the way in which we intend to develop our competitiveness policies.
Consumer bodies have supported our proposals. Business has welcomed the Bill. It regards it as an important contribution to the drive to cut red tape. We, too, regard it as such. We value anything that lifts burdens from business without removing necessary protection; I only regret that the Opposition do not. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 242.

Division No.255]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Couchman, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cran, James


Amess, David
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan, Alan


Bates, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Elletson, Harold


Body, Sir Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowden, Andrew
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fabricant, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brandreth, Gyles
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Fishburn, Dudley


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Forman, Nigel


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forth, Eric


Budgen, Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burns, Simon
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butcher, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butler, Peter
French, Douglas


Butterfill, John
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gallie, Phil


Carrington, Matthew
Gardiner, Sir George


Carttiss, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Cash, William
Garnier, Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gill, Christopher


Chapman, Sydney
Gillan, Cheryl


Churchill, Mr
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clappison, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Coe, Sebastian
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Colvin, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Conway, Derek
Greenway, John (Ryedale)






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Heald, Oliver
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Richards, Rod


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Speed, Sir Keith


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knox, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spring, Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Legg, Barry
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward
Steen, Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Stephen, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stern, Michael


Lidington, David
Stewart, Allan


Lightbown, David
Streeter, Gary


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sweeney, Walter


Lord, Michael
Sykes, John


Luff, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maclean, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thomason, Roy


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tracey, Richard


Mates, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Trend, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Trotter, Neville


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Viggers, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Walden, George





Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wilshire, David


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Wilkinson, John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dowd, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ainger, Nick
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Allen, Graham
Enright, Derek


Alton, David
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Fatchett, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Austin-Walker, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barnes, Harry
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, John


Battle, John
Fyfe, Maria


Bayley, Hugh
Galloway, George


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gapes, Mike


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Bruce


Benton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Berry, Roger
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Blair, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blunkett, David
Gordon, Mildred


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gunnell, John


Burden, Richard
Hall, Mike


Byers, Stephen
Hanson, David


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Canavan, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David


Cann, Jamie
Home Robertson, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hood, Jimmy


Clapham, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coffey, Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dewar, Donald
Khabra, Piara S.


Dixon, Don
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lewis, Terry






Litherland, Robert
Primarolo, Dawn


Livingstone, Ken
Purchase, Ken


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Llwyd, Elfyn
Randall, Stuart


Loyden, Eddie
Raynsford, Nick


Lynne, Ms Liz
Reid, Dr John


McAllion, John
Rendel, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McCartney, Ian
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Macdonald, Calum
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McFall, John
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, Jeff


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McLeish, Henry
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


MacShane, Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Michael, Alun
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Stevenson, George


Milburn, Alan
Stott, Roger


Miller, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tyler, Paul


Mowlam, Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Mudie, George
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Paul
Watson, Mike


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wilson, Brian


O'Hara, Edward
Winnick, David


Olner, William
Wise, Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wray, Jimmy


Parry, Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. Gordon McMaster and


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Ray Powell.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Railway Pensions

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move,
That the draft Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the draft Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

Mr. Freeman: The House will recall that, during the final stages of the Railways Bill last year, I undertook that there would be further consultation with all interested parties before the orders implementing the detailed future railway pensions arrangements were laid before Parliament for approval.
The industry and the present trustees were fully involved in working out the detailed arrangements on which we went out to wider consultation on 31 March with the trustees, employers, trade unions and pensioners' representative bodies. We have taken account of their comments as far as possible and I wish to thank all those consulted for the clarity and promptness of their representations.
In particular, we have reached full agreement with the British Rail pension trustees on all major points of principle relating to railway pensions after privatisation. The arrangements that we have agreed honour the commitments given by the Government in Parliament and elsewhere. I can assure the House—

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I would like to finish my sentence.
I can assure the House that the pensions of all railwaymen and railwaywomen, both past and present, earned in their service with BR are safe, and that the future arrangements will give them security.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister has just made a very definite statement. Is not it true that the trustees have not met and that any agreement that the Minister has reached has been because of the fiduciary duty of the chairman that there may be an agreement within a very narrow sense? However, it is not true that the Minister has reached complete agreement with the trustees.

Mr. Freeman: I do not believe that that is an accurate statement. The trustee board—that is, all the trustees—met on 5 May and agreed all points which had been negotiated except the treatment of the deficit and the surplus after deficit. However, all the trustees agreed a compromise proposal to put to the Government. We have agreed to that compromise, so I would argue that we have fully met our commitment to obtain agreement with the trustees.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Since the Minister has referred to the surplus and the deficit, will he clarify the position in respect of the solvency guarantee? As I understand it, the Government will make good deficits in the years where they occur, but they will recoup that money in years when there are surpluses. Is that right?

Mr. Freeman: This is a complicated subject. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will explain the issue as clearly and as succinctly as I can. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied when I reach that part of my speech, I will give way.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As I understand it, the Minister claims that there has been no difference of substance in respect of the proposals since the board of trustees met and agreed on 5 May. Is he aware that the trade unions feel a deep sense of grievance that they have not agreed the final package? There is therefore a considerable difference between what the Minister says tonight and what the unions say. We must remember that the pensions are of fundamental importance to trade union members. Surely it is important that the Minister ensures that the trade unions are fully consulted about and agree with the final proposals.

Mr. Freeman: I have had two separate rounds of meetings with all three railway unions. I believe that we have met all their substantive arguments and I shall discuss some of the issues later.
If there are specific drafting issues, but not points of principle—if the unions and their legal representatives feel that we have not reflected accurately in the final orders before us what they would wish—I give an assurance to the House that we will amend the legislation by subsequent orders for which the Government have to come back to the House, subsequent transfer orders and Transport Act 1980 orders. We will use those orders to amend in detail where there is agreement between the trade unions and their representatives and the Government—or the rules themselves can be changed. However, I assure the House that, following my lengthy meetings with the unions and their representatives, we have met all their arguments of substance.
Those are extremely difficult issues. Obviously, there will be an opportunity in another place for the orders to be debated yet again. Indeed, the Government will have to come back yet again with further orders during the summer. We are not seeking to bamboozle the unions—that is not possible. We are not seeking to railroad the issue through, if the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will forgive the pun. We have pursued those negotiations. After all, we can only negotiate with the trustees. The consultation with the trade unions was in parallel with those negotiations but, I believe, carried out in good faith on both sides.
We have before us tonight the first two draft orders. Let me first discuss the draft Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order, which will give the promised statutory "no less favourable" protection to "protected persons"—broadly, people who were in service or retained benefits in the schemes on 5 November 1993 —and incorporates in article 11 the "indefeasible right" to remain in equivalent, that is to say, "shared cost", sections of the joint industry scheme, which will be called the "Railways Pension Scheme", for so long as their employer remains a part of the railway industry. We have agreed to extend that right. That is a point that was argued forcefully, not only by the trustees, but by all three unions, so that it will not now be lost where employees change jobs voluntarily within the industry—an important concession that was argued for well during the consultations.
I should like to clarify two points about that order. First,

with regard to the definition of "designated scheme" in article 1(2), the intent is to protect relevant pension rights at the date of the order, including the right to future accrual of such rights on a "no less favourable" basis. Secondly, there is an area of concern between my Department's and the trustees' lawyers about the precise drafting of paragraph (4) of article 7. Should it be agreed that an amendment is necessary in respect of that latter point, we shall make it when we make the transfer order—I intend to lay a draft of that order next month.
For the purposes of the "indefeasible right" that is conveyed by article 11, paragraph (4) of that article defines the "railway industry". The intent is that the term should comprise activities currently carried on by BR which may in the future be carried on by successors, but only to the extent that they are activities connected with, or provided for, the railway industry.
The order also designates the existing pension schemes to which it applies for the purpose of enabling their members or beneficiaries to be protected persons. A handful of BR employees retain membership of pension schemes operated by Associated British Ports and the National Freight Company. If we did not specify those schemes, those BR employees would not be given statutory protection. I emphasise that that is the sole reason why we are designating the ABP and NFC schemes. I give an assurance to the House that the Government have no intention of using the powers in relation to "existing schemes" contained in schedule 11 to the Railways Act 1993 to amend either of those schemes.
The Railways Pension Scheme Order formally establishes on 31 May 1994, under the powers provided in paragraph 2 of schedule 11 to the Railways Act 1993, the "Railways Pension Scheme", which, it is planned, will succeed the existing main BR schemes—that is to say, principally the BR pension scheme, the BRPS—on 1 October 1994. The order also appoints the Railways Pension Trustee Company Ltd. as the first trustee to the scheme, and designates the scheme as "the joint industry scheme" for the purposes of paragraph 8—that is to say the "indefeasible right" provisions—of schedule 11. The key provisions are in the schedule, which contains the pension trust and the different scheme section rules.
Existing BRPS pensioners and deferred pensioners will be transferred into the 1994 pensioners section of the RPS —the closed section. Initially, there will be two such sections. The reason for that is a practical one related to valuation of the Government's liabilities to them under the Transport Act 1980. Those people who were already pensioners and deferred pensioners at 31 March 1994 will join the "A" section, while those retiring or deferring their pensions between 1 April and 30 September will join the "B" section. The two sections will have similar rules, and will be amalgamated as soon as possible thereafter.
The Secretary of State will be under a duty to give a solvency guarantee to those sections. The guarantee will secure the continued payment of fully index-linked pensions. The proposed draft of the guarantee, the details of which have been agreed with the present trustees, was deposited in the Library last Friday. The members will have rights under the rules to share in any future surpluses in their fund. The rules are contained in appendix 1 to the schedule.
Distributed surpluses will be shared as follows: 40 per cent. to payment to pensioners, and 60 per cent. to a special reserve retained in the fund. The Government cannot


withdraw those sums while the fund continues. The 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. mirror the existing ratio of distribution. Serving staff who are members of the BRPS will be transferred into the BR section of the RPS. They will move into their new employers' sections, which will have materially the same rules, affording them the security and continuity that they have sought, as their employment is transferred, for example, from BR to a franchised railway operating company.
The rules are contained in part 1 of appendix 2 to the schedule. They provide that pensionable service will normally be treated as continuous, even on voluntary transfers between the equivalent sections of participating employers, subject to Inland Revenue restrictions. The Railtrack and European Passenger Services sections will be set up almost immediately. The continuous service provisions ensure that those who move involuntarily or voluntarily within the industry will protect their length of service. So there is no penalty involved in the truncation of service.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister explain what he meant by the word "normally" He said that there would normally be continuity of service. As things stand, anyone who is in the British Rail pensions schemes retains, year for year, each year of service. Are there are any circumstances in which an employee who moves from one company's to another company's employment, but who retains his membership of the scheme, would not receive year for year, month for month, day for day, the service previously accrued in the scheme?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, and it relates to the Inland Revenue laws. I have explained this to the unions. Where an individual moves and has a very substantial salary increase, there are restrictions on the number of continuous years that can be provided for his or her pension.

Mr. Bayley: As there is detriment in those cases, will the Minister explain how the scheme, as agreed now, matches up to the Government's commitment that there will be no detriment in the new scheme and that the new scheme will be no worse? "No less favourable" are the words that Ministers used throughout the discussions in the Standing Committee which considered the Railways Bill. How can he say that the scheme is no less favourable when he admits that some people will be disadvantaged?

Mr. Freeman: I think that the hon. Gentleman will admit that there are bound to be some examples, but they will be few and far between. We are talking about an individual who moves from one job to another with a substantial salary increase. I do not believe that that will be the norm. Individuals will transfer within the industry from one train operating company to another, or from an infrastructure company to a train-operating company broadly on similar salaries. It is an Inland Revenue rule. It is not something that either the order or the Department of Transport can alter. It applies throughout the private sector. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and I may be able, through the means of a written answer, to make the House aware more precisely of the rule. If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a question, I shall answer it as fully and comprehensively as I can. The matter, I understand, may well be raised on another occasion.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that few of us are concerned about the person who may be an engine driver and who goes on to become the deputy chairman of Railtrack? Most of us are concerned about those who have some years service with British Rail and who have perhaps moved to an operating company. They may spend part of their working lives working for Railtrack, and would hope to have continuous service instead of moving around different companies in the contracting industry. That is the problem which the Select Committee on Transport faced, and the Committee feels that the Government have managed to achieve agreement on it. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it has been solved?

Mr. Freeman: Yes.
The method for determining the initial split of assets between the sections of the RPS will be agreed with the trustees after taking the advice of our respective actuaries. The transfer order, another affirmative order, a draft of which will be laid before Parliament next month following the formal establishment of the scheme, may be used to split the assets between the sections of the RPS. Because we have to consult the trustees of the RPS first, the transfer order cannot be laid until the RPS has been formally established and the trustees appointed.
To maintain flexibility, employers will be able to admit new employees either to their section which succeeds BR's section, or to other new sections providing alternative pension arrangements. This will make the RPS more attractive to new employers, and give their employees the comfort of belonging to a large, well-managed pension scheme. A template for the rules for defined benefit and defined contribution sections is contained in parts 2 and 3 respectively of appendix 2 to the schedule.
Equal employer/employee representation will continue on the trustee board and the "Pensions Committees"—the management committees—of all sections. For legal and technical reasons, we are having to form a new trustee company, the Railways Pension Trustee Company Ltd., to act as trustees to the RPS. At 1 October this company will also take over as trustee of the other BR pension schemes for which the present trustee company acts so that the existing investment pooling and management arrangements can continue.
It is our intention that all the participating employers in the RPS will share in the ownership of the trustee company so as to prevent a single employer having sole influence over it. To facilitate this, the trustee company will be wholly owned by a holding company, Railtrust Holdings Ltd., which will be a company limited by guarantee making change of ownership easier when employees join or leave the scheme. The first directors will be the directors of the present trustee company together with two nominated by Railtrack, and one each by the British Transport Pensioners Federation and the Retired Railway Officers Society.
The present trustees have suggested that those latter two posts should be directly elected by the pensioners from the outset, but I have been advised that an early election would be difficult to organise. However, those nominees will only serve for the first two years until direct elections can be organised.
Although the articles of association provide for direct election of employee/pensioner directors after an initial two-year period, they empower the trustee board to devise


alternative arrangements for voting, providing that equal employer/employee representation is maintained. That was a point put to me by the unions and the Government have agreed to provide flexibility in the mechanism for election.
Copies of the memorandum and articles of association of both companies, which will be incorporated by the BR board later this week, were placed in the Library last Friday.
For historical reasons, BR has a number of other pension schemes, all listed in the designation order. These schemes will stay in place. We see no requirement for the time being to transfer members, either serving staff or pensioners, out of their schemes. I should make it clear that no changes are proposed to the British Transport Police scheme.

Mr. Donald Anderson: On two occasions, the Minister has said that certain documents relevant to the debate were put in the Library last Friday. Does he think that that is an adequate time—however technical the documents are—for the outside interests to assess adequately the relevance and importance of those documents?

Mr. Freeman: I have given the House an assurance, with regard to the documentation placed in the Library and the orders in this complicated field, that if representations are made—either by the trustees or their representatives, or by the trade unions or their representatives—which improve the documentation, because we settled the points of principle, then amendments will be made. These are enormously complicated issues and we have kept faith with those whom we have consulted in their preparation.
In relation to the closed fund for pensioners—in other words, the pensioners' sections—we have honoured the memorandum of understanding entered into with the trustees and the BR board last July. We have reached agreement with the trustees on a formula for partial deferral of Government cash support payments, under the Transport Act 1980, to the pensioners' fund to take account of the Government solvency guarantee. Any deferred payments will remain an obligation of Government, earning interest, and will be accounted for as an asset of the section.
We intend to bring an order before Parliament before the summer recess giving effect to that agreement, which we intend will take effect in October. It was agreed last July that the Government must give their consent to decisions affecting their financial exposure under the guarantee. Originally, that consent was to have been exercised by a Government director on the trustee board. Because of potential conflict between his fiduciary duties under general trust law and his responsibility to the Government, we have decided not to proceed with that proposal. Instead, the consent of the Secretary of State will be required—within the terms and conditions of the guarantee—to strategic decisions about the fund, but not its day-to-day operation. Accordingly, there will be no Government director on the trustee board.
When the orders were laid before Parliament on 10 May, there was one issue in relation to the pensioners' fund on which we had failed to reach agreement with the trustees. Although we had accepted that pensions should not be reduced in cash terms in the event of a deficit in the fund, even if they included unguaranteed discretionary

increases, we had not resolved the procedure that would apply in the absence of other agreement if the fund went into deficit and subsequently returned to surplus.
We have now reached agreement, however, on the basis of a compromise proposal put to us by the trustees. We have accepted the compromise. In the event of a deficit, the special reserve will be applied in full first, before any freezing of pensions. I should emphasise that the pension prevailing at the establishment of the closed sections on 1 October 1994 will always be indexed for inflation. It cannot be reduced or frozen. Total pensions may subsequently include discretionary real increases and it is the total that may, as a last resort, be temporarily frozen until the indexed guaranteed pension exceeds it. After those sources had been exhausted, Government guarantee payments would be made. A subsequent surplus would be applied in the reverse order.
The trustees have also offered changes to our original agreement on Transport Act 1980 payments, to reflect the ramifications of this proposal. Both we and the trustees regard that position as a fair way of dealing with a problem that was not foreseen at the time of the memorandum.
Even though the pensioners' section rules do not reflect that revision of policy, there is no need to amend the order. We are considering with the trustees changing the rules —in particular rules 13, 14 and 16—after formal establishment, through the amendment procedures written into them. That procedure might also be used with the agreement of the trustees to make other agreed amendments to the pension trust or rules, to clarify the existing drafting where that is considered necessary, especially in relation to the provision of "seamless" voluntary transfers between railway employers within the RPS, in normal circumstances on which agreement has been reached with industry employers. Failing that, the required amendments will be made together with the forthcoming transfer order. I repeat that assurance.
The arrangements to be implemented under the two orders will fully deliver the undertakings given by the Government and provide the promised security, protection and peace of mind to BR's existing staff, pensioners and deferred pensioners. I hope that the House will support them.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The Minister constantly reminds me of a sort of upmarket job creation scheme whose business is digging holes to fill them in again. This Minister seems to revel in creating complexity in order to unravel it.
Let us rise for a minute above the minutiae of what is being so lovingly described by the Minister. Why are we here? What is the scandal about the British Rail pension fund that makes it the centre of attention in the House tonight? Why, out of all the problems that exist in the country and the world, have scores of parliamentary hours been devoted to the affairs of the British Rail pension fund?
The sole reason why the fund, which is well run, acts responsibly in the interests of its members and has attracted no complaints—unlike many of the private pension funds that the Tories have been anxious to shepherd people towards—is being debated is that it is a by-product of the


Tories' destructive determination to fragment our railways. Out of that has arisen the opportunity to fragment the BR pension fund.
This has been a tawdry and wholly unnecessary exercise. It has given rise to thousands of hours of lawyers' time being wasted and having to be paid for over the past 18 months, just to deal with the complexities to which the Minister keeps referring. It has disrupted the operations of a smooth-running pension fund and, most important, it has caused immeasurable upset for tens of thousands of railway pensioners, who, like the rest of us, deeply resent this unwarranted interference in what should be the sacrosanct territory of a pension fund.
The whole exercise has been characterised by opportunism, by incompetence, and ultimately by a retreat on the part of the Government. At the start, the Treasury thought that it could get its hands on £4 billion of railway pensioners' money, to set against the public sector borrowing requirement. The simple device was to be the splitting of the pension fund and the taking over of half of it for future administrative purposes.
Step by step, the Treasury has been frustrated in the achievement of that end, and I welcome the assurance that it will get nothing out of the exercise. If that is indeed so, it has been a major victory for all concerned: for the Opposition, for the trade unions, but most of all for the thousands of railway pensioners who protested at what has been done—

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): No.

Mr. Wilson: Let the right hon. Gentleman have another look at his original proposals, which sparked off fear and alarm among railway pensioners as they realised that half of their fund was to go directly, not into thin air, but to the Treasury. Four billion pounds was and is big bucks and big politics, but the people who planned the audacious raid have been forced to back off. I promise them that we will remain vigilant throughout every stage of the process to see that not one penny of the BR pension fund ends up in the Treasury.
Right to the end, interference with the pension fund was characterised by chaos and confusion. The Minister tonight used the same phrase as the Secretary of State used in the press release issued last Friday:
John MacGregor, Secretary of State for Transport, today welcomed the final agreement of the BR Trustees to the joint industry pension scheme for railway industry staff and pensioners".
Why do Ministers thus continually misrepresent what has occurred? The Secretary of State, the Minister and the authors of the press release know as well as I do that there had never been a meeting of the trustees to consider the final proposals. At the very time the press release was being drawn up, the proposals were still being drafted—late on Friday. Yet the Department had the cheek to put out a statement saying that the trustees had accepted them.
There is a precedent for the folly of this approach. The rest of us remember the memorandum of understanding of last year. In good faith, the chairman and chief executive of the pension fund accepted the memorandum when the trustees had not yet met. Yet Ministers misrepresented the facts, saying that they had accepted the memorandum. Ultimately, the fact that there had been no such acceptance

was exposed—hence the scenes in the House of Lords, shortly before the legislation was finally passed, which brought the Bill into even greater disrepute.
The press release contained another untrue phrase as well. It speaks of the
joint industry pension scheme for railway industry staff and pensioners in the new privatised railway.
But there is no new privatised railway, and the way things are going there is not going to be one. No one is interested in investing in the "new privatised railway", and it matters not whether the train operators or Railtrack come first: still no one will be interested in investing in the new privatised railway, because it is a lousy bet for any investor.
In the event of there being a new privatised railway, what do we have to look forward to? I shall quote from Friday's edition of the Eastern Daily Press. It stated:
Children 'put at risk' by rail cuts … Schoolchildren and commuters will be left stranded following railway bosses' decision to scrap a key rural service … Regional Railways insisted: 'We live in a commercial world where we have to generate the maximum amount of revenue'.
So the new timetable changes will leave schoolchildren and commuters waiting at Spooner Row, Eccles Road and Harting Road.All those stations are in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Transport. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State attacks the Eastern Daily Press. Rarely can a Secretary of State have been so directly the author of his constituents' misfortune.
Under a previous arrangement, these orders were at one stage to be debated on Thursday. I make that point to my hon. Friends who complained about documents not being in the Library until Friday. Even on Friday, the Government were still changing this and altering that and amending, rubbing out and pencilling bits in. They got messengers to go running around with the documents so that they would reach the unions, the people who represent those most directly affected, before 5 o'clock. I have a copy of a document which states:
On Her Majesty's Service. Express service at all stages. I certify that the papers transmitted under this label are official and of great urgency and require to be delivered by 5 pm today.
That was 20 May. The matter has been going on for 18 months and affects the pensions of tens of thousands of people in the industry and those who have given their lives to it. But messengers were scurrying about on bikes at 5 pm on the Friday before the orders were to be debated. That is after 18 months and a great amount of candle power, and still the Government have not been able to complete the orders.
I shall later ask for undertakings that the changes to which I understand the Government have agreed, even since the statutory instruments were printed and since the bikes delivered the latest dispatches to the trade union headquarters, will eventually be incorporated in the instruments. What an impertinence that at 5 o'clock on Friday they were still messing about with people's pension funds on the basis of such a shambles.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, will he address the issue of seamless transfers for railway personnel between employers? On this, as on many other matters, the Tories have been forced into involuntary retreat in an attempt to offer sweeteners to potential private interests. They started by saying that they were not prepared to allow staff to maintain their pension rights if they transferred voluntarily from one company to another within the railway industry. That would apply only if transfer were compulsory.
In February, the Government finally changed their tune and agreed that voluntary transfers and promotions with the industry would carry the same rights. However, the terms of that climbdown continued to be unclear, and are not adequately covered in the orders. Can the Minister confirm that the period of pensionable service for rail staff will not be reduced as a result of a transfer from one employer to another within the railway industry? If that guarantee is forthcoming, as I believe it will be, will it apply to new entrants to the scheme?
A crucial question is whether the Minister will confirm that clause 8 of the pensions trust will be amended to implement the ministerial promise of seamless transfers between railway employees on promotion or other voluntary transfers.
Secondly, I turn to the issue of discretionary pension increases in the event of the fund's temporarily going into deficiency. The Government's previous position was that in those circumstances discretionary increases would cease in spite of the very effective safeguards proposed by the trustees. That is an important consideration for pensioners, and particularly older pensioners. I understand that discretionary increases account for some 15 per cent. of the average pension. Will the Minister confirm that he has also retreated on this issue and that rules 13, 14 and 16 of the pensioners' section—the one that covers pensioners and deferred pensioners—will be amended as agreed with the trustee company on 18 May to strengthen the security of pensioners' entitlements?
I again remind my hon. Friends that all this has been going on for 18 months, but the Government were still being forced into the reluctant concessions such as this last week.
Thirdly, I want some explanation of where the Government have reached on an insolvency guarantee for the existing and deferred pensioners' fund. I understand that the chief officials of the trustees are now satisfied with what is proposed. On the basis of their most recent information, the National Union of Rail, Maritirne and Transport Workers understands that a mechanism has been proposed to enable Ministers to harvest the surpluses of the fund in good years and to pay back money given under the solvency guarantee, which thus becomes a loan rather than a grant. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify that.
My hon. Friends will raise many other questions, and I want to leave them plenty of time to do so. But I return to my original point. There is no reason for us to debate the British Rail pension fund now. It should never have been disturbed, in the same way that British Rail should never have been fragmented. A Labour Government will restore British Rail to a national, integrated railway company. We will restore its pension fund. We will restore peace of mind for its pensioners.
I believe that the Government have many problems. I believe that the Tories have many problems in the weeks ahead, never mind the months ahead, in selling rail privatisation to any substantial body of opinion. [Interruption.] I think that I just heard the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I remember that lie was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. We talked for weeks about railway pensions, yet the only time that he intervened was when a question arose about oil pipelines. When I hear an hon. Member intervene on a question of oil pipelines, that is the time to reach for the

Register of Members' Interests. And sure enough the hon. Gentleman did not disappoint me. He does not seem to be able to get off his posterior this evening to contribute.

Mr. Peter Snape: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that that oil pipeline did not pass under a council house in Westminster?

Mr. Wilson: I think that we should intrude no further on the private grief of the hon. Gentleman and Lady Porter, though, I presume, not in unison.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Sink a bit lower.

Mr. Wilson: Sink an oil well.
The central subject of the debate tonight is the future of railway pensions. As the Minister said, there will be many more orders to find out exactly what the Government have in mind. I give him due notice that just as we have followed this from start to finish, just as we have forced retreats on all the major intentions that the Government had towards railway pensions, just as we wiped out the original options that the Government had the impertinence to lay before railway pensioners, so we will continue to monitor the whole process from now until the day when that whole shower is consigned to the dustbin of history. I do not trust them. The country does not trust them. Most importantly, the railway pensioners do not trust them.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) entertained the House, but asked unnecessarily why we are having the debate. For the past five elections, some of the trade unions sponsored Labour Members of Parliament to contribute to such debates. I think that if the trade unions that have political funds had been asked whether it is right to spend £10 million every general election to sponsor a party that has lost each one of them since 1974, they would begin to believe that they should start spreading their favours rather more widely. Even better, they should stop trying to pretend that the Labour party represents the political interests of their members.
The reason why we now have sensible pension arrangements is not just because of the Labour party, but because hon. Members on both sides of the House responded to the Government's invitation to comment, both on the Select Committee and individually. I think that rail pensioners and prospective rail pensioners have reason to be grateful to Ministers for their response to what Members have said.

Mr. John Heppell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point, as I am a railway pensioner?

Mr. Bottomley: I shall give way, but I had not developed any point beyond answering the rhetorical question from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North.

Mr. Heppell: As a railway pensioner, let me say that I am not happy with the way in which the Government have handled the situation—and I suspect that mine is the view of most railway pensioners. My hon. Friend spelt out the position. First, the Government promised us "comparable" arrangements, before coming up with two options that were nowhere near comparable. Then they switched it to "favourable", before coming up with options that were not


favourable. I am still in the same position: my pension will be less beneficial to me now than it was before privatisation.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman may wish to make his own speech later, unless he has made it already.
What really face us are the public problems of the Labour party. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made it obvious to all—including those Labour Members who are present and, by extension, those who are satisfied with the position but are not present, who make up probably nine tenths of the parliamentary Labour party—that railway workers have no further problems. I think that that outcome was predictable.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North has predicted that Labour will reverse the changes that are in progress in the railway industry. As I have made plain on a number of occasions, I believe that the Government's aim should be higher capital investment, less current subsidy and more use of the railways; but today we are more concerned with the interests of those who work on the railways—both in the operating companies as they now are, and in Railtrack as it now is.
The assurances given to the House—whether those announced on Friday or those that were predictable from the outset, and certainly those given by my right hon. Friend this evening—are acceptable. It is a disgrace that Labour's spokesman has not described what has now been proposed as right and acceptable. In no part of his speech has he said that it is unacceptable to those working in the rail industry.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman made a fairly good speech, in his terms. If he wants me to give way, I will.

Mr. Wilson: I intervene mainly because the hon. Gentleman said that something was disgraceful. I asked for a list of assurances that I understand to have been given to the railway trustees; no doubt they will eventually be given to the trade unions, but they have not yet been translated into statute. Within the wider framework—to which I continue to object, without apology—immense progress has of course been made, but it now needs to be translated into legislation.
I reserve the right for other Labour Members to say that some problems have not been resolved, and I hope that they will take this opportunity to do so.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman did not describe them in his speech. Perhaps he did not know what they were, or perhaps he wanted to spread them around among his hon. Friends.
Over the past 20 years, the basic problem in the railway industry has not been pensions: there is no doubt that the workers' pension funds have been well financed. The basic problem has been overstaffing and under-investment. The biggest problem in Labour's approach to public services —of which public transport is certainly one—is that, given the choice between higher capital investment and higher current subsidies, Labour always chooses higher current subsidies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced in the procedures of the House. We are supposed to be discussing railway pensions; may we return to that subject?

Mr. Bottomley: I say that the biggest problem has been under-investment in capital and too much subsidy because Labour has always been in hock to trade unions. That has been bad for those working in the industry, and bad for capital investment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to my earlier remarks. The House is debating railway pensions: will he please return to that subject?

Mr. Bottomley: I am concerned about pensioners' interests because pensions come from investment, not from current subsidies. Perhaps if I had said all that the other way around it would have been clearer to me what I was trying to explain.
It is important to consider the way in which we are going about our capital investment to secure a railway service, pensions and pay for those working in the industry that match the best in Europe. Railway workers' pay has risen in recent times, as have the pensions of those working in the more modern services that the railways are now developing—which do not just include the channel tunnel services and the lines in which there has been heavy capital investment. If we want that to continue, we must break away from the trade union-Labour party links ordaining that an hon. Member must make a speech after 10 pm, describing a problem that no longer exists in the pensions of those who have worked for British Rail, and those who are working and will receive their pensions from the railway operating companies and Railtrack.
In the face of their sedentary interruptions, I make a plea to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, who should make their own speeches rather than interrupting mine, that they should try to dedicate themselves to achieving a proper mixture of the interests of those who want to use railways and of those who work in them.
Those who want a capital intensive railway and good pensions for those who work in the railway operating companies and Railtrack should welcome the achievements of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State and should say that the trustees know what they are doing.
An attack has been made on the Treasury, which, generally, is not here to defend itself. That probably is wise because it might occasionally come under attack from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, if one may interpret what he says to it in private. I believe that Ministers should be congratulated on the way in which they have represented the interests of rail workers.
Current and future employees can trust the provisions of the orders. Despite my doubts about the original lack of certainty, I recommend to trustees and workers that they can trust the proposals. Following developments in the past year, current pensioners can believe that their interests are safeguarded and future pensioners can go on taking part in the transformation of the railway industry so that it can start to meet a larger share of the transport needs of this country.
Without a Conservative Government since 1979, the railway industry would be in a worse situation. Pensioners would be experiencing the inflation that they were used to


under the previous Labour Government. Nobody under 35 can believe that, but as most Labour Members are older than that they know that what I am saying is right.
The reason for the debate is the ancient link of the party political levy. A third of Labour Members have trade union sponsorship and almost all Labour Front-Bench spokesmen receive a third of their election sponsorship from trade unions. I say to them: break the link and we shall be offering a better service to pensioners and other rail users.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is always rather embarrassing to see Conservative Members trying to walk backwards and climb on a bandwagon at the same time. Had they any knowledge of what happens to people who get in the way of rolling stock, they might be rather more careful in their use of the English language.
The reality is that rail pensioners are exceedingly worried about the orders, not least because their contents were not transmitted to the rail unions until five days after they were officially published. Only when the unions went directly to the Minister and asked for an extension to the consultation period were they given sufficient time to discuss them with their members. The unions then put a number of detailed questions to the Minister but heard nothing further until last Friday. That is not my interpretation of consultation.
Pensioners in my constituency—I make no pretence of not representing their interests because I am a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—are extremely concerned that the Minister, under the guise of protests that he is introducing a highly complex scheme, has not answered to the satisfaction of representatives of railwaymen and women a number of detailed questions that concern them. If what the Minister has done is so reliable and so good for the pensioners involved, why was he not prepared to make the detailed answers available sufficiently early for them to be circulated among the men and women directly affected? There should have been no difficulty about that. If the Government have only the interests of railwaymen and women at heart, why are they so coy about letting pensioners know what is involved?
If the Minister genuinely believes that the average voter trusts the Government when it comes to pension funds and the denuding of those funds, he has got another think coming. In fact, the average voter has absolutely no trust in the Government in respect of matters that are of concern to all individual members of the scheme. He is not convinced that the fund's surplus will be protected.
Is it true that the Government's proposals will mean that, although they may underwrite deficit years, in other years the Government will have the right to cream off funds? If so, how do the Government explain that? What are the changes in the rules on maternity provision? Is it true that the maternity provisions in the new revised scheme may implement the Social Security Act 1989 but will they also worsen current arrangements by giving the employer discretion? As there is already clear evidence about the effects of fragmentation in the railway industry, I am afraid that individual pensioners are right to be concerned about what is happening to their future provision.
I know that many hon. Members want to speak. I shall not dignify the remarks of the hon. Member for Eltham

(Mr. Bottomley) by responding to them but I have this to say to him: if he had worked all his life in a low-paid, often dangerous and frequently undervalued industry, he would not have the effrontery to come here and talk such utter incompetent and arrogant rubbish.

Mr. Keith Hill: The privatisation of the railways has been a shambles from the word go. At its very inception the Bill was awarded a vote of no confidence —to say the least—by the all-party Select Committee on Transport, of which the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is a member. It spluttered and faltered its way through its Committee stage and was subject to an unprecedented number of amendments in both Houses, the vast majority of which were tabled by the Government. We might reasonably have expected the shambles to have concluded with the ludicrous and unseemly proceedings of the Reasons Committee last November. However, it continues with the present, highly imperfect statutory instrument which, according to what the Minister has told us this evening, we understand is to be the subject of further amendment. Such confusion and lack of consultation has been the hallmark of privatisation and has persisted to its very dying throes in the proposals that we are now debating.
Let me illustrate how unsatisfactory the consultation process has been by reference to the experience of my sponsoring union—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—which has more than a small stake in the issue, through its present and past members of the British Rail pensions fund and through its representation among the British Rail pensions fund trustees. A consultation draft of the proposals was circulated on 31 March, just before the Easter bank holiday. The RMT did not receive it until 7 April. The consultees—the RMT and the other unions involved—were given a mere handful of days until 25 April to examine and respond to the documents, which were several inches thick. Nevertheless, the RMT co-operated as far as possible with the foreshortened timetable and agreed to meet the Minister for Public Transport on 21 April. At that meeting, the Minister agreed to extend the consultation process so that the detailed paper prepared by RMT could be examined.
There was no response from the Government to the RMT's points until 4 pm last Friday, 20 May. In other words, the union representing many thousands of actual and potential pensioners had no guarantee that the orders took account of its constructive criticisms. It simply is not good enough. Nor is it good enough for the Secretary of State to claim, as he did in a letter entitled "Railway pensions after privatisation", sent to hon. Members on 18 May, that agreement had been reached with the British Rail pension fund trustees. Other hon. Members have made that point. The plain truth is that the trustees have not met since 5 May and no agreement has been recorded. The trustees have not met to endorse the proposals. Whatever the Minister may say, that is the indisputable truth.
It may well be—the Minister said as much this evening —that something has been settled with the chairman and chief executive of the British Rail pension fund trustees. We have been through this saga already—last summer—with the memorandum of understanding. We have learnt


already that the assent of the chairman and the chief executive does not signify unanimous agreement by the trustees—far from it.
There is no excuse for this confusion and for the defective process of consultation that we have witnessed. It has been unfair to the institutional partners, such as RMT, and it has been grossly unfair to the many thousands of senior citizens who rely on their small British Rail pensions to supplement their meagre state pensions or to the thousands of potential pensioners still in railway employment. There are 330,000 of them in total. Those many hundreds of thousands have been subject to quite unnecessary anguish over the past two years as a result of an unnecessary privatisation and the Government's inept handling of it.
Throughout the period, we have witnessed example after example of policy-making on the hoof. Let us consider the present provisions concerning year-for-year credits for staff transferring from one to another employer's section of the industry. Until last Friday and possibly later, it was still unclear whether the protected persons provisions under paragraphs 5 and 6 did ensure that membership of one employer's section of the joint fund would be so credited on transfer.
Now, as we understand it, we have received reassurances from the Minister on the matter. We shall need to examine very carefully the written record tomorrow. Even if the reassurances are satisfactory, it is wrong that they should be subject to last-minute policy clarifications and announcements. It is wrong that staff and the organisations representing them should not have had an adequate opportunity to assess any changes that may have been made.
Meanwhile, it is far from clear that the necessary assurances have been offered or will be offered on other fundamental issues of concern. As I understand it, paragraph 8C.1 leaves discretionary powers in the area and paragraph 8C.2 also fails to provide year-to-year credit on compulsory or voluntary transfers.
Vital as those considerations are, an even more profound defect is the Government's proposal relating to the so-called "absolute solvency" guarantee in the new railway pension scheme. Certainly, the guarantee given to the existing and deferred pensioners' section of the scheme ensures Government support in deficit years, and that is to be welcomed. At the same time, the Government are now proposing a new mechanism to enable Ministers to harvest the surpluses of the fund in good years to pay back money given under the solvency guarantee. In other words, the solvency guarantee becomes a loan and not a grant.
By no stretch of the imagination can the scheme be regarded as a no less favourable arrangement. It is contrary to the 60:40 split agreed in the memorandum of understanding. In the event of a deficiency, it could result in members of the scheme being unable to benefit from future surpluses for many years. We have had repeated reassurances from the Government on that issue of "no less favourable terms". It is a scandal that such undertakings are not being honoured.
Privatisation of the railways has been the most unpopular privatisation ever. Never have so many Conservative Members voted with such lack of conviction to so little advantage for their party. Time after time,

Conservative Members have been driven through the Division Lobby despite their better judgment. The desperate unpopularity of the privatisation scheme may have been allayed at least by the Government's hopes that they could hold out on the promise of milking the pension fund to pay for better times around the corner. They have even failed with that. The railway pensioners rose up and they forced the Government to give up their planned £4 billion clawback from the fund. That was one of the very few pluses in the whole sorry saga, but it was a major gain, for which the Opposition can take their fair share of the credit. Railway privatisation has been a shambles from start to finish and the biggest victim of that shambles have been the Government.

Mr. John Heppell: Thank you, Chair. I would like to start by—

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): It is Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Heppell: Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister as well, who seems more upset than you do.
I am a member of the Labour party and I am proud of that. I am also a member of RMT and I am proud of that. I also pay the political levy of RMT, so that money goes to the Labour party and I am proud of that. I am also a deferred member of the British Rail pension scheme and I am proud of that. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), may I tell him that there is no political levy on the British Rail pension fund? None of my pension is paid to the Labour party. Nothing is paid to the RMT. The fund is for the benefit of existing pensioners and future pensioners, one of which I hope to be at some time. I feel more than a little annoyed that the hon. Member for Eltham has muddied the water in that way, as though it is some sort of political issue generated by the Labour party.
I was astonished and, quite honestly, frightened about my future when the plans came out. It was not my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who implanted some of those worries in my mind, nor was it my other hon. Friends. I was worried because of what I saw in the Government's papers. Effectively, it was one attempt to con me after another and I think that all railway pensioners feel the same. I mentioned to the hon. Member for Eltham earlier that, when I first saw the proposals, the Government talked about my pension being "comparable" —I think that that was the word—to what it is at present. When I then saw what they were proposing, I quickly realised that it was not comparable.
The Government then changed the words to "no less favourable" and I thought that we were moving in the right direction, but then I saw that they had put forward two options, which were Hobson's choice. Neither of them was even half as good as the pension that I already enjoy. When people say that there are two options, that I have to pick the one that I like best, but I have already got something better, why should I be grateful for that? Why should I be grateful for the fact that, rather than taking all my money, the Government are taking only half? I refuse to be grateful and I suspect that the majority of British Rail pensioners will refuse to be grateful, too.
Whether or not the Government were ruining British Rail—there is no doubt that they were—the pension fund was thriving. The trustees had invested the money wisely


and we were enjoying massive surpluses. The employers and the employees had had their contributions frozen. We were not having to pay the amount of contributions that we were paying before and we were looking forward to enjoying extra benefits from the surpluses that had been generated. All of a sudden, the Government realised that there was money to be made. From that moment, things went downhill, but the Government tried to con me and other pensioners that there was nothing wrong with what they were doing. I resent the hon. Member for Eltham helping the Government to con people again.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. He is talking as if the Government had not improved their proposals when they have produced a scheme that is acceptable to the trustees. The debate should be focused on the Government's current proposals, which are acceptable to the trustees and should be acceptable to the pensioners. The speeches that we are hearing from the Opposition Benches are being made by Members who are sponsored by trade unions.

Mr. Heppell: That is nonsense.
I suppose I have a vested interest because I am a pensioner irrespective of whether I am a trade unionist, but the Government are relying on short memories. There has been improvement but I want the arrangements to be as good as they were initially. It is not encouraging when the Government say, in effect, "We'll slash your pensions", and then say that they will not slash them quite that much. Should we accept that? The Government have moved, but not far enough.
We are told that the trustees are happy now, but I remember when the trustees were happier earlier. Some people's memories are failing. There was a memorandum of understanding, but the Government's understanding was different from that of the trustees and their chair. As soon as the trustees understood what the document stated, they did not accept it. It should be understood that the trustees have a voice and a message and some influence on our decision. Their perspective, however, is rather narrow. They are supposed to look after me and other current pensioners, and at the same time they should be protecting the interests of future pensioners.
The Minister talked about the present pensioners but he did not refer to future pensioners. I am concerned because I want those people to have decent pensions. There is nothing wrong with blue-collar employees having good pension schemes, but I have heard Conservative Members express astonishment that railway workers should have such marvellous pension arrangements. They think it disgusting that such lowly workers should have such a marvellous scheme. I am delighted that I am a member of such a scheme and I want to ensure that it stays as it is.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that we have arrived at a compromise. We have a guarantee of the fund's solvency but the arrangements for the Government's payments into the fund are rather cloudy. The so-called compromise was reached because, in effect, during the negotiations a gun was held at the heads of the trustees. They had a choice. They said to themselves, "We agree to this or we get nothing." The compromise is not one that I am prepared to accept. As a pensioner, the proposals are not acceptable to me. I shall continue to fight to ensure that

pensioners have the scheme that they deserve, the scheme that they had before the Government embarked on the disastrous process of privatisation.

Mr. Donald Anderson: It is significant that the only attempt by a Conservative Back-Bench Member to justify the orders was made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who produced a political knockabout about the relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions. Even the hon. Gentleman conceded that a significant change has been made to the earlier proposals. That is why there was such anxiety among those who already benefit from railway pensions and those who are likely to benefit in future.
We must surely consider the orders in the context that railway pensioners are some of the lowest paid people in the country. I am frequently appalled at the take-home pay of the railway workers in my constituency to whom I speak. It is therefore hardly surprising that they are very concerned about the way in which this matter will be handled. Those pensioners have become concerned after reading of personal pension sales and the fall in the value of those pensions. Our concerns about the orders are concerns of procedure and, in part, concerns of substance.
With regard to the procedure, the Minister agreed that it was only at 4 pm or 5 pm on Friday that there was a mad scramble to get the documents into the Library. We know what happens on a Friday. There are likely to be very few people around able to receive or adequately to digest documents that are delivered then. The weekend would have passed before people returned to this place.
Had there been an opportunity to scrutinise the documents, some of the anxieties might have been allayed. However, it is clear that in the time available people who were keen to look through the details to discover whether there were remaining areas of concern or detriment to pensioners in what are clearly matters of grave importance for their futures had insufficient time to assess such matters.
When the point was made about the late delivery of the documents on Friday, the Minister said that the order has to go to the other place. However, as I understand it, that will happen in only two or three days' time. There is unlikely to be sufficient time between now and then to examine the matter. As a fall-back position, the Minister said that, even if there is inadequate time between now and the matter going to the other place, further technical orders will allow further opportunities for examination.

Mr. Alan Williams: As my hon. Friend has been a Member of this place for some considerable time, does he recollect that it would have been a matter for incredulity at one time if a Minister came before the House and announced that he wanted to legislate on a matter that he knew contained drafting errors? Does my hon. Friend also agree that, when the matter goes to the other place, it goes in this form and stays in this form? Even if errors are found in the few days between now and its appearance in another place, there is no procedure whereby the other place can amend the order.

Mr. Anderson: Precisely. As always, Swansea, East agrees with Swansea, West on this matter.
I hope that the Minister will take this point on board. On a matter of such importance to so many people on low incomes, it is wholly unreasonable for the matter to be handled in this way. That is the point about procedure.
On a brief point of substance, the Minister conceded that there will be a detrimental effect for an element of the pensioners—those who he said had a substantial salary increase on moving from one company to another. He did not give the House details of how many people are likely to be affected or how substantial the pay increase would have to be before they were adversely affected as a result of the Inland Revenue procedure.
I hope that the Minister agrees that the fact that there is Inland Revenue involvement at this stage arises directly from the privatisation procedures. There is, indeed, detriment to an indeterminate number of people arising directly from the orders.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I take great pride in being sponsored by a rail union—the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. I must tell the Minister that the members and pensioners in that union are not experiencing the peace of mind to which he referred in the final sentence of his opening remarks. I intend to ask the Minister questions that have been asked by that membership. Other questions have been touched on by my hon. Friends.
I have found the debate which emanated from Conservative Members and from the Minister's opening remarks almost unbelievable. It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) to point out that the British Rail pension scheme was universally acknowledged to be one of the best and best managed schemes in this country until the Government decided to destroy the railway industry by privatising and thought that there might be a strong possibility of getting their hands on £4 billion of surpluses.
I have also found remarkable, in remarks emanating from the Conservative Benches, the presumption that the BR pension scheme somehow belonged to the Government. It was my understanding, and it was certainly the understanding of members of that scheme, that it belonged to the membership. The gloss that the Government have attempted to put on the orders—as though they have, in their infinite wisdom and charity, decided to divine and define a pension scheme that would be of benefit to British Rail pensioners—is outrageous. Eighteen months ago, they deliberately set about trying to destroy that pension scheme. The outcry that was created in the country by those actions, by amendments that they were forced to table, and by the doughty fight put up by Opposition Members in Committee, forced the Government to retract from their initial desire to destroy the pension scheme and to transfer £4 billion, as we perceived, into the Treasury.
Pensioners are still disturbed and they have every right to be disturbed. My hon. Friends have described what seemed to me outrageous behaviour on the part of the Minister, scurrying around attempting to obtain agreements. Pretensions are still being presented in the House that some type of agreement has been reached by the trustees of the scheme when, as my hon. Friend the

Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, there has been no such meeting. There are still grave worries and we are not scaremongering, even though that is the only cry that Conservative Members ever put to us; we are not creating fear among pensioners.
It is disgraceful that pensioners of the British Rail pension scheme, who have dedicated their lives to an industry and now have to watch it being destroyed, should be presented by Conservative Members as though they had not the brains, the intelligence, the character or the ability to understand what the Government are trying to do. The presentation of those dedicated, highly intelligent and mature people as a will-o'-the-wisp of some kind of party-political shenanigan is proof, if proof were needed, of the basic contempt of Conservative Members for any type of industrial work force.
I have to say to the Minister and to Conservative Members that I believe that worries will grow in future if they do not speedily answer the precise questions that I and my hon. Friends are asking. I intend to ask a couple of precise questions in conclusion, as speedily as possible. If the Government have the idea that there can be any kind of way forward for the scheme and what is left of the national rail industry without direct consultation with the members of that pension scheme, and with the trade unions which are also members of that scheme, as a priority—because obviously there will be changes along the way—the Government can justifiably look forward to even stormier months ahead.
In conclusion, I should like the Minister to answer two direct questions from the union by which I have the honour to be sponsored. They are about the pensioners section. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) referred to the first one—that the society is anxious that payments under the solvency guarantees should be a first charge against future surpluses. ASLEF believes that that is contrary to the intention behind the 60–40 division of surpluses written into the memorandum of understanding. In the event of large deficiencies arising, it could be many years before any surpluses were available for the benefit of members, if at all. I should be grateful if the Minister would give a direct reply to that question.
The other point is rule 16 on winding up the section. Rules 16A and 16B give grave cause for concern as they give the Secretary of State all powers, duties and discretion to wind up the section at any time.
Those are the two particular questions that I have to ask. If my hon. Friends had not asked other questions, I would have asked those questions too. I trust that the Minister will not labour under a delusion that the concerns have been answered satisfactorily. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) used the word "should" many times. He said what members of the British Rail pension scheme should feel. It is not his right or his privilege to tell them what they should feel. They know, and they would like direct answers to genuine concerns.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: No.

Mr. Wilson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, follow that outline. With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
The Opposition have had two purposes in the debate. The first was to remove any misapprehension that it was


some sort of technical debate—a mere mechanistic process to sort out a few little local difficulties round the edges. It was no such thing. There are still a great many questions to be answered and I and my hon. Friends have signposted them. I shall leave the Minister as much time as possible to answer them, but I appreciate that he will not answer them all and I look to him for an undertaking that he will deal with what he has acknowledged to be complex questions. I hope that he will write to the hon. Members who have raised them and try to give us some clarification before another barrel-load of amendments turn up in the Lords in a week's or a month's time.
Secondly, we make no apology for setting the debate in the wider context. The measure need not arise. It arises only as a by-product of what the Government are doing to the railways in general. Their measures are unwanted and have little public and very little political support. Without that fundamental interference in the workings of the railways, there would be no need to break up the railways pension fund and—

Mr. Bayley: Before my hon. Friend sits down, although I know that time is short, will he reply to one of the points made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who seemed to suggest to the House that there had been some bipartisan defence of the pensioners' rights? Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the Standing Committee which considered the Railways Bill we spent more time debating pensions than any other matter and that in not one of the Divisions did a Conservative member of the Committee vote with our party to support pensioners? Indeed, on many of those occasions the Liberal party did not vote with us either.

Mr. Wilson: I shall come to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in a moment. Let me first finish the sentence. We make it absolutely clear that none of this would arise if it were not for the generality of what the Government are doing to the railways. What they are doing is unwanted. We regard it as despicable that the pensioners' worries and fears to which the Government's manoeuvre has given rise should be a by-product of that exercise.
I now come briefly to the hon. Member for Eltham. It is difficult to imagine a degree of brevity that is not over-generous. In a debate on the serious matter of the future of pensioners, their fears and concerns, their well-being, security and so on, the only Back-Bench speech from the entire Conservative party was an incoherent ramble in which the only interest of the hon. Member for Eltham seemed to be in circumventing your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so as to get on to subjects which were extraneous to the debate. It speaks volumes about the quality of intellect on the Benches behind the Minister, never mind what is on the Front Bench, that that was the best that could be put forward in a debate of this nature. Not one attempt was made at a rational defence or justification of what had been done.
What my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) says is true. In the Standing Committee, pensions matters were dealt with at inordinate length. All the probing was done. All the objections from pensioners flooded in. As my colleagues who were members of that Committee and the Minister will remember, the only attempt by a Conservative member of the Committee to exert any pressure on the Government came from the late

Stephen Milligan, the then hon. Member for Eastleigh. Although he did not vote for any of the amendments, he at least made an effort because he had a large constituency interest in that matter.
If the record of this debate is read nowhere else, by heaven it should be read in Eastleigh because of the cavalier way in which the Government and the Minister have been prepared to treat the interests of railway pensioners. The fact that we have had this sort of debate at this time of night, in which not one Tory Back Bencher has been prepared to defend what is being done—and the fact that the railway pensioners' interests are being treated as a by-product and side-effect of the other legislation—will have been noted in Eastleigh. It will continue to be noted there, and in every other community in Britain where there are railway pensioners—and a hell of a lot of constituencies are covered by that term.

Mr. Freeman: I, too, pay tribute to what Stephen Milligan achieved in his brief time in the House, and to the distinguished contributions that he made to the debate on the Railways Bill. I look forward to a Conservative Member being returned at the Eastleigh by-election.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) spoke for 19 minutes, and failed to adduce a single argument against the orders. There is no point of disagreement. Has the hon. Gentleman got one? [Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman has not raised a single point of disagreement between the Government and the trustees.
I say to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that I take exception to her remark that I had contempt for the industrial work force. I do take exception to that.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
For the past six months, the Government have negotiated in good faith with the trustees and with the trade unions, and we have reached agreement.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North has left me four minutes to answer nine points. I shall deal with them, and there is no need for me to write to hon. Members because the answers are brief and clear. I made it plain during the proceedings in Committee that we were not to extend the indefeasible right to new entrants to the industry, and I made the arguments at great length.
We will amend clause 8(c) to mirror our agreement on the seamless transfer of benefits. We will also deal with clauses 13, 14 and 16, as I made plain in my opening remarks.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate asked about the solvency guarantee. Let me make it plain that the Government will not take out from the pension fund a single penny piece. Where the Government honour the solvency guarantee, those payments will go to support our commitment that pensions should be index linked.
Let us not forget that railwaymen and women have an excellent pension scheme. Not only do they have their pensions index linked; they have the scheme's solvency guaranteed from the Government. They also have—as they have had for many years—the right to 40 per cent. of any surpluses. That is an excellent pension scheme.
I repeat what I said at the outset about the solvency guarantee payments which go into the pension fund. No solvency guarantee payment will ever be repatriated to the Government while the fund is in existence. Any payments back would stay as a special reserve for the benefit of all pensioners.
We have had a number of speeches from members of the RMT, including the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Streatham (Mr. Hill) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). I must say that they were unfair in their descriptions of the negotiations and discussions that we had with the RMT. The RMT is not a trustee of the pension fund, but the Government have gone out of their way to deal with the unions with utmost respect. I have described the several rounds of meetings which we have had with the RMT.
Which detailed points remain unanswered with regard to the RMT? There are no outstanding issues. I explained clearly at the outset of the debate that, on 5 May, the trustees had met—including representatives of three unions—and had agreed on all the points which were negotiated until then, with one exception: the treatment of deficits and surpluses. What happened? The Government accepted the compromise proposed by the trustees. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, all the points raised by the trustees and the unions have been dealt with. If points of drafting detail are outstanding, I have given the House a commitment that when we deal with the rules —the memorandum and the articles of association—in detail, and when we lay further orders, we will certainly pick them up.
I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that we have not made time available. We have been reasonable, not unreasonable, and have reached agreement after months of discussion.
I pay tribute not only to the trustees and officers of the trustees, but also to the unions for their constructive contribution, which has been notably lacking tonight.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate about rules 16A and 16B, the Government and the Secretary of State have no power to wind up the closed section of the pension fund for a period lasting until 2013—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [19 May].

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 170.

Division No. 256]
[11.45 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Booth, Hartley


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bowden, Andrew


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Atkins, Robert
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carttiss, Michael





Cash, William
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clappison, James
Knapman, Roger


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coe, Sebastian
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Conway, Derek
Knox, Sir David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Couchman, James
Legg, Barry


Cran, James
Leigh, Edward


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lidington, David


Day, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dicks, Terry
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lord, Michael


Dover, Den
Luff, Peter


Duncan, Alan
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan-Smith, Iain
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dunn, Bob
MacKay, Andrew


Durant, Sir Anthony
Maclean, David


Dykes, Hugh
Malone, Gerald


Elletson, Harold
Mans, Keith


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Marlow, Tony


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evennett, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Faber, David
Mates, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Merchant, Piers


Fishburn, Dudley
Mills, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Forth, Eric
Moate, Sir Roger


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Moss, Malcolm


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Nelson, Anthony


French, Douglas
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fry, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gallie, Phil
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gardiner, Sir George
Norris, Steve


Garnier, Edward
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Gillan, Cheryl
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Gorst, John
Paice, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pawsey, James


Grylls, Sir Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hague, William
Rathbone, Tim


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Riddick, Graham


Hanley, Jeremy
Robathan, Andrew


Hargreaves, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Harris, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Sackville, Tom


Hawksley, Warren
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hayes, Jerry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heald, Oliver
Sims, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hendry, Charles
Speed, Sir Keith


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Horam, John
Spink, Dr Robert


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sproat, Iain


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Stephen, Michael


Jack, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Streeter, Gary


Jenkin, Bernard
Sweeney, Walter


Jessel, Toby
Sykes, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Key, Robert
Thomason, Roy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)






Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Ann


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Watts, John





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Graham, Thomas


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Grocott, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Gunnell, John


Austin-Walker, John
Hall, Mike


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hanson, David


Barnes, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Battle, John
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bayley, Hugh
Harvey, Nick


Benton, Joe
Heppell, John


Betts, Clive
Hinchliffe, David


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Hood, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Burden, Richard
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Byers, Stephen
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hutton, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cann, Jamie
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clelland, David
Jowell, Tessa


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Coffey, Ann
Khabra, Piara S.


Cohen, Harry
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livingstone, Ken


Corston, Ms Jean
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dafis, Cynog
McAllion, John


Dalyell, Tam
McAvoy, Thomas


Darling, Alistair
McCartney, Ian


Davidson, Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McFall, John


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McMaster, Gordon


Dobson, Frank
McWilliam, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Dowd, Jim
Mahon, Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mandelson, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marek, Dr John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Enright, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Etherington, Bill
Martlew, Eric


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Alun


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foulkes, George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Fyfe, Maria
Milburn, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Miller, Andrew


George, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gerrard, Neil
Morgan, Rhodri


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Godsiff, Roger
Mudie, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mullin, Chris





O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Neill, Martin
Snape, Peter


Patchett, Terry
Soley, Clive


Pickthall, Colin
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter L.
Spellar, John


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prescott, John
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Purchase, Ken
Watson, Mike


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Rendel, David
Wise, Audrey


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Worthington, Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wray, Jimmy


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Clare



Simpson, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

EDUCATION AND TRAINING: SOCRATES PROGRAMME

That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 4715/94 and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Education on 9th May 1994, relating to education and training (SOCRATES programme); supports the Government's view that the SOCRATES programme will offer helpful opportunities for schools, colleges and universities in the United Kingdom to develop the European dimension in particular through support for language learning; and welcomes the Government's efforts to secure a progamme which respects the principle of subsidiarity and which offers value for money.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

TRANSPORT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft International Transport Conventions Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Subjects at Key Stage 4) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Terry Davis be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Alan Milburn be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown]

Orders of the Day — A47 (Improvements)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important matter of the A47 trunk road improvements. I thank colleagues and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), who both have a keen constituency interest in the road, for being here at this late hour for the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his attendance to reply to the debate.
I have to declare an interest and I do so with some ambivalence because if the road is dualled it is likely to take half of my front garden. However, the road is important for my constituency and is vital to the long-term economic interests of my constituents.
My speech will contain no criticism of the Minister, who has always been extremely courteous and helpful and I have brought deputations to see him on the matter. But, of course, Departments of State get matters wrong and Governments make mistakes. The thrust of my argument will be to show that the Minister and the Department have got it wrong in their proposals for the A47.
We need to set aside emotion. Bypasses and roads are very often the subject of great emotion. I propose to set down the argument tonight, because I believe that the case can be won on its own merits. I would argue for a co-ordinated policy, where Government Departments worked together with an integrated policy for regional development. Improved transport links have as critical an influence on economic development in sparsely populated and relatively isolated peripheral areas as any other single issue. Conversely, to deny regions adequate transport links is to confine them in economic terms to the second division.
The A47 in Cambridgeshire came out very badly in the recent trunk road review of the Department of Transport, which set out
the Government's proposals for a revised and prioritised programme".
The 1989 White Paper entitled "Roads for Prosperity" gave as a stated aim
a greatly expanded motorway and trunk road programme to relieve congestion".
The A47 was designated for dualling along the whole of its length, from Peterborough to Norwich, a total of some 54 miles. There was further endorsement of that policy in the paper "Trunk Roads, England into the 1990s", which confirmed that
the A47 will become a dual carriageway from the A l to the west of Peterborough to Norwich.
Schemes in preparation in my constituency on 1 January 1990 included the Peterborough to Thorney improvement —we were promised the preferred route by 1992—and the Thorney bypass, where we were told to expect orders in the winter of 1990–91.
It would not be an exaggeration to claim that the 1994 review decimates those programmes. Lengthy sections of the A47 in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk were withdrawn altogether, including the section between Thorney and Guyhirn. Others were placed in the category of "longer-term improvements". In that category came Peterborough to the west of Thorney, and the Guyhirn to


Wisbech section, including the Wisbech bypass. As priority 3 schemes, design work will not even start on them for some 10 years, and construction is therefore most unlikely to begin much before 2015. I suppose that I should seek some consolation in that in the sense that my garden will not be lost for another 20 years, but from my constituency point of view, that time lag is quite unacceptable.
Although the A47 Walpole to Tilney bypass in west Norfolk was given the go-ahead recently, the only scheme in Cambridgeshire to go into the active programme, and then only as a priority 2, was the Thorney bypass.
The Government's stated objectives for their roads programme, as set out in the 1989 White Paper, and unchanged by this year's trunk road review, is first to assist economic growth by reducing transport costs; secondly, to improve the environment by removing through traffic from unsuitable roads in towns and villages; and, thirdly, to enhance road safety. Those objectives would certainly attract universal support, and it is against them that the case for the A47 should be measured.
Let us start with the region's economy. Heavy traffic flows, delays, accidents and over-capacity all put up transport costs and are a serious deterrent to attracting businesses to locate in the region. The design capacity for the single-carriageway A47 is 13,000 vehicles per day. Although the average along the whole of its length is below that at just over 10,000 vehicles per day, that hides significant variations: for example, more than 22,500 vehicles per day on the Eye bypass; 17,000 vehicles per day between Guyhirn and Wisbech; and 11,800 vehicles per day between Thorney and Guyhirn. That vehicular flow is seriously exacerbated by the heavy use of the road by agricultural implements at particular times of the year.
Overall traffic flow has grown by some 60 per cent over the past 10 years, equal to an annual growth rate of 5 per cent. per annum. That compares with the national growth in traffic of 40 per cent. over the same period. Forecast increased traffic growth throughout Cambridgeshire is in the order of 45 per cent. to 60 per cent. in the years 1991 to 2006. That compares with a target range of some 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. nationally.
The upgrading of the A47 was a cornerstone of regional development strategy for East Anglia. Regional planning guidance note 6 for East Anglia in 1991, although acknowledging the spectacular success of parts of the region, drew attention to areas of slower growth and higher unemployment in the northern and eastern peripheries and the more remote rural areas—for example, north Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, which are served by the A47.
Wisbech is specifically mentioned in RPG6 as still to attract its share of the economic growth and prosperity enjoyed by the rest of Cambridgeshire. Paragraph 28 states:
Generally the effect of the trunk road programme … will be to reduce the remoteness of the less prosperous areas and assist in providing more opportunities for economic development in them.
Paragraph 29, however, goes on to say that the development framework for the region is expected to provide for
some dispersal of investment in jobs from the more prosperous and congested areas in the west and Cambridge in particular, to those areas to the east and north, where the improvement in trunk roads is expected to increase their attractiveness for economic

development and growth.
It is debatable whether the issue could be stated more clearly and unequivocally.
The strategy was fully endorsed by the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities, which concluded that
investment in the Al1/A47 will enhance the prospects for Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Wisbech, and the Rural Development Areas.
Although the A11 is scheduled for improvements, a failure to improve the road network in the northern and eastern parts of the region will threaten the prospects for growth and investment in the most economically disadvantaged part of East Anglia."
Support for the strategy does not stop with SCEALA, however. Cambridgeshire county council, Peterborough city council, Fenland district council and Kings Lynn and West Norfolk borough council are all very supportive of the dualling of the A47. In its structure plan review—deposit plan 1993—Cambridgeshire county council indicated that, where investment in roads was necessary, priority would be given to schemes that stimulated economic development and employment growth in the north and east of the county, and both Peterborough and Wisbech are identified target centre locations for generating employment.
The unemployment statistics for Wisbech underline the point. In 1989, the unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire as a whole was 2.7 per cent.; in the Wisbech travel-to-work area, it was 4.5 per cent. In 1991, the rate in Cambridgeshire as a whole was 6.2 per cent.; it was 8.7 per cent. in Wisbech. In 1993, it was 7.6 per cent. and a substantial 11.4 per cent. in the Wisbech travel-to-work area.
Through its scrutiny and acceptance of the Cambridgeshire structure plan and RPG6, the Department of the Environment has accepted the logic of the case for development and road improvements to go hand in hand; but another Department—the Department of Trade and Industry—has had an even more direct involvement in the economy of the region. In 1993, after successful lobbying, several areas in East Anglia were designated intermediate assisted areas. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that two of those areas were the Wisbech and Great Yarmouth travel-to-work areas. The single ingredient that those areas have in common is their dependence on the A47.
Separately, but at about the same time, a case was submitted to the European Commission in Brussels—strongly supported by both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment—for parts of East Anglia to qualify for EC structural funds under objective 5b status, the category dealing with areas suffering from significant unemployment in agriculture. In recognition of the relative economic disadvantage of the region, four areas were designated under objective 5b, two of which straddle the A47. Again, the Wisbech travel-to-work area and part of west Norfolk featured strongly, together with mid-Norfolk—based on Swaffham —and Lowestoft.
The other European dimension is the lobby to include the A47 in the trans-European road network, on the basis of its potential importance as a strategic route linking mainland Europe with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is understood that the Department of Transport sought the inclusion of the A47 in that network, but that that was not


accepted by the Commission because of the absence of a roll-on, roll-off link from Great Yarmouth to mainland Europe.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Mannin line roll on/roll off ferry from Great Yarmouth to Ijmuiden has doubled its sailings since the loss of the Norfolk line connection with Schevenigen in Holland two years ago? With the addition to the European Union, which we shall shortly welcome, of Sweden, Norway and Finland, the route through Ijmuiden into northern Europe and Scandinavia becomes even more important. The need for the A47 not only to be dualled beyond Norwich to Great Yarmouth—what we call the Acle straight—but its designation, with the support of the Government, as a trans-European network becomes more important with the expansion of the European Union than it was before, and it was important before.

Mr. Moss: I am grateful for that timely intervention. I knew that the roll on/roll off link had been reinstated, but the most important fact is that we are unlikely to get support from Brussels if our Government do not earmark the A47 for significant improvement and give it high priority in our national road programme.
I turn to the second of the Department of Transport's objectives—improvement of the environment. I have alluded to the higher than average growth in traffic in north Cambridgeshire and to the fact that on some stretches of the A47—notably the Eye bypass and the Guyhirn to Wisbech stretch—traffic flows are respectively 30 per cent. to 80 per cent. above the road's capacity. Any reduction in flow or increase in capacity will have a dramatic effect on the environmental amenity of settlements along the road, and by far the most critical improvement would be the provision of a bypass for the village of Thorney.
Some grudging acceptance of that fact by the Department of Transport has been given since the Thorney bypass has been included in this year's review, albeit as a priority 2 scheme. I remind the Minister, however, that as recently as 3 November 1993, in his reply to my inquiry about the bypass,- he said that draft orders would be published at the end of 1994, but under the review the scheme does not have a target milestone in either 1994 or 1995. In response to another letter that I wrote only a week or so ago, I have had a reply from Lawrie Haynes, chief executive of the Highways Agency, about the Thorney bypass. He said:
It would not be meaningful at present for me to anticipate when we shall be in a position to publish our proposals as draft orders, but it will be several years away.
It gives me no joy to report that the Department of Transport's most recent policies in relation to Thorney are in tatters and are totally lacking in credibility. Fears were expressed that the proposed traffic-calming measures for the village were in some way in lieu of a bypass, and with the most recent announcement I am sure that villagers will conclude that their original expectations have come to fruition.
There is an overwhelming case for the early completion of the Thorney bypass. It is compatible with all the Government's objectives and it is strongly supported locally. The people of Thorney have been kept waiting for some 50 years for a bypass and the moral case is powerful

because of the number of times promises have been made but not kept. I ask the Minister at least to give some indication of the target date for the publication of the order.
The third of the Department's objectives is to enhance road safety. Accident rates on the A47 within the county of Cambridgeshire are 23 per cent. higher than the national average for existing rural area roads. That is 0.43 injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres, compared with the national average of 0.33. Again, that average masks considerable variations.
The worst section for accidents is that between Eye and Thorney, with double the national average—0.66 injuries and accidents per 1 million vehicle kilometres. Furthermore, it is a section of the A47 which featured in the review programme under the category "longer-term improvement". As I have already said, that could be 20 years away. As an accident black spot, it is closely followed by the Thorney to Guyhirn section, which has 0.56 accidents per 1 million vehicle kilometres, but the review removed any improvement of that section of the road from the programme entirely, a decision that defies all logic under criteria set down by the Department itself.
According to the Department's own figures for 1992, fatal crashes on the A47 in the North West Anglia health authority area cost about £9.2 million. When that is added to the £4.1 million for non-fatal crashes, the total cost to the economy reaches £13.3 million. If all the projects along the A47 in north-west Anglia were completed, I estimate that the total cost would be between £70 million and £80 million, but cutting serious accidents would mean a pay-back period of between five and seven years, which is an excellent return by any standards.
The A47 is a route of major strategic importance to the economically disadvantaged parts of northern East Anglia. Potentially, it is also a key route for the European Commission's trans-European road network. Upgrading of the A47 is regarded by local authorities as essential for the achievement of the Government's regional strategy for East Anglia, encouraging economic growth in the area and maximising the benefits to the local economy of the recent granting of objective 5b and intermediate assisted area status.
The revised roads programme acknowledges the importance of the A11 which, with the A47 to the east of Norwich, provides an important route linking the M11 to Great Yarmouth. By the same logic, it should also acknowledge the importance of linking the A1 west of Peterborough through the northern part of East Anglia to Great Yarmouth and the benefits that that would bring to the objective 5b and assisted areas along that route.
The A47 is unpleasant and dangerous for road users. Drivers do not like using it, but there is little alternative. Drivers working for the Eastern Counties Omnibus Company hate driving on the A47 and try hard to swap rosters to avoid routes that use the road. Given the forecast increase in traffic, the A47 in Cambridgeshire will soon be stretched beyond its design capacity and, as traffic increases, the accident rates are bound to worsen.
The Department of Transport seems to be under attack in certain parts of the country for building roads that local people do not want, but we want this road. The Department will have no problem in getting the road accepted by local authorities and will have the full support of my constituents. The case for the road is overwhelming according to all the objectives set out by the Department. I believe that the Department needs to consult more closely


with the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry, both of which have agreed regional economic strategies for my constituency and the surrounding areas. I ask the Minister to liaise with his colleagues and to think again.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall be brief because I know that the Minister wants some time for his wind-up speech.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said. When the White Paper was published just the other day, there was a sense of disbelief in west Norfolk. As my hon. Friend said, the A47 had been earmarked as a strategic route in the 1989 White Paper and there was to be dualling along its entire length. At that stage, there was rejoicing, but there was a sense of let-down when the road was downgraded in the new programme.
We are very concerned about the Hardwick roundabout in particular. The scheme is ready at the end of the runway, and the draft orders were published back in May last year. There have been no objections to the scheme. About three years ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the then Secretary of State for Transport, said that there was no reason why it could not be built within two years. We were very confident that the scheme was to be announced as a new start this year, so one can imagine my sense of total disbelief and anger when I saw in the review that it was to be not a priority 1 but a priority 2 scheme.
We are also concerned about the Middleton-East Winch bypass, which is down in the review as a single-lane bypass. Of course we need the bypass very badly. To see it down as a single-carriageway scheme makes no sense at all when, in the mid-1970s, the Swaffham bypass on the A47 slightly further along was dualled and, going west, the South Lynn bypass was dualled. It makes no sense, 20 or 25 years on, to build a new bypass as a single carriageway.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could comment on those two important local points for my constituency. Apart from that, I entirely concur with the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on securing the debate. I sometimes wonder whether the constituents of any Member of Parliament realise the lengths to which their representatives go to obtain these debates. More than that, I wonder whether they realise how much effort a Member of Parliament puts into discussing problems with Ministers in the interests of his constituents. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a tireless champion for his constituents on these road schemes, which I know are of great importance to him and to his electors.
I also welcome the interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss). I look forward to visiting Great Yarmouth later in the year at the invitation of my hon. Friend. In the six or so minutes left to me, I

cannot conceivably do justice to the depth of interest in the subject which has been displayed by my hon. Friends, but I shall do my best to make a little progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East is aware that the Government have recognised that the A47 provides an important strategic link between the industrial midlands and the east coast ports and he has rightly described what happened in the 1989 White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity". It contained proposals for improving the A47 from east of Peterborough to Norwich to dual carriageway standard. That commitment has been reaffirmed in the report of the 1994 review of the roads programme which acknowledges the importance of the A47, particularly to the east of Norwich. Together with the A11 from its junction with the M11, the A47 provides an important link to the motorway network from the port of Great Yarmouth which has, of course, recently been granted assisted area status.
I am glad to hear the strong views of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, on the question of the trans-European route network—the TERN. The question of a TERN route along the A47 is still under active consideration by my Department. We are looking again at the routes all over the country and whereas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East points out, in some parts of the country these routes are viewed with great suspicion and are apparently most unwelcome, in other parts they are seen as an opportunity. That is clearly the case here.
Our strategic programme has to be translated into actual construction. It has already, of course, brought significant improvements to the trunk road network in Cambridgeshire and the rest of East Anglia. These improvements have brought considerable benefits both for drivers and for the communities that have been relieved of through traffic. Record sums have been spent over recent years on roads in the region, especially the A47, the A11 and the A140. I pay tribute here to the Secretary of State who, long before he was Secretary of State for Transport, as the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South, made valiant efforts which, over the years, have been recognised in new road schemes to promote the interests of transport in East Anglia. Now, of course, he cannot say that himself, but I can and I do.
Some £71 million has been spent in Cambridgeshire alone in recent years. On the A47 in Cambridgeshire, we have seen since 1990 the completion of a number of bypasses and diversions. Further east on the A47, the Norwich southern bypass, the Narborough bypass and the East Dereham to North Tuddenham improvement have also been completed.
The purpose of the review which, I know, has upset my hon. Friends and which was the most wide ranging for many years was to place the road programme on a much more efficient and properly managed basis. I have had representations from hon. Members on both sides who have, over the years, been led to believe that their bypass was just around the corner.
It is quite clear that the prioritisation that we have undertaken has put far more certainty and far more focus into the roads programme. I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friends in this instance, but it is a rolling programme and as priority 1 schemes are completed, so priority 2 schemes move up. Then, of course, no doubt, the longer-term schemes have the opportunity of moving into the active programme.
One of the virtues of adopting that approach is that we have been able to avoid some £100 million a year of premature expenditure on scheme preparation and design. That is the cost of a goodly number of bypasses and it will be much better spent on construction. So we shall be able to build more schemes sooner and concentrate efforts on the most urgently needed bypass and motorway-widening schemes. In the process, we have been able to identify some schemes, which are no longer considered acceptable on environmental grounds, or which are not going to be needed for the foreseeable future and they have quite rightly been removed from the programme.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East will appreciate that it was inevitable that such a comprehensive review of the national roads programme would have implications for A47 schemes in both Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. We will be pressing ahead with our original proposals for dualling the road from Norwich to Great Yarmouth. We concluded that the initial strategy west of Norwich should be to concentrate on relieving local communities of through traffic.
I am glad that we were able to include the Thorney bypass in the revised programme, although we were unable

to justify making the section of the A47 between Peterborough and the west of Thorney dual carriageway for the time being. Similarly, we have looked very carefully at the road east of Thorney to Guyhim. We concluded that there was no pressing need for upgrading that section and it has been withdrawn from the programme. However, proposals for improving the section from Guyhim to Wisbech, together with improvement of the A1101 junction on the Wisbech bypass, remain in the programme. The Thorney bypass was always going to be subject to resources being available and to our review of the roads programme.
In the meantime, but not as a substitute for the bypass, traffic-calming measures for Thorney were presented to the public in November. The Highways Agency expects to announce the results of that consultation exercise by the end of the next month. Harsh decisions about funding may have to be made in some cases all over the country. Of course, we are subject to resources being available nationally. I am certain that the decisions which have been made in the review of the roads programme are the right ones.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve midnight.